Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update CVE reference in where modules report_vuln #8518

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 8, 2017

Conversation

jmartin-tech
Copy link
Contributor

@jmartin-tech jmartin-tech commented Jun 5, 2017

Update references to include CVE where one can be associated when report_vuln is used.

Verification

List the steps needed to make sure this thing works

  • Start msfconsole
  • Verify modules load

@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ def initialize(info = {})
'License' => MSF_LICENSE,
'References' =>
[
['CVE', 'CVE-2016-10073'], # validate, an instance of a described attack approach from the original reference
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

['CVE', '2016-10073'], # validate, an instance of a described attack approach from the original reference

remove CVE-, this will also fix travis

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will do thanks.

@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ def initialize
'License' => MSF_LICENSE,
'References' =>
[
['CVE', '2013-5211'], # see also scanner/ntp/ntp_monlist.rb
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The vulnerability and abuse/exploitation is definitely similar, but this is not the same protocol, so IMO referencing this CVE here will cause more problems than it solves. What am I missing here?

@jhart-r7
Copy link
Contributor

jhart-r7 commented Jun 6, 2017

I'm not sure I agree with using CVE-2013-5211 as a reference for all of the UDP-amplification related modules. Yes, the CVSS would likely be the same, and maybe by following this CVE reference users might get additional information that is truly relevant to the module in question, however I wonder if this will cause more problems than it solves.

I'd be OK with using CVE-2013-5211 for all of the NTP module as a compromise, but CVE-2013-5211 as written is for two very specific and similar vulnerabilities in NTP. These other modules are for other similar issues. If a CVE for generic UDP amplification issues existed, we should use that.

Perhaps one way to look at this is what are the pros/cons of reusing this CVE. On one hand, users will get more information, but on the other, used incorrectly this additional information may lead users astray.

@jmartin-tech
Copy link
Contributor Author

The references are used for correlation of modules to vulns associated to them and in framework are not always specific, currently attempted interactions are only reported when a CVE is associated and the module is in the exploit tree. This is a first phase to prepare for expanding attempts to be reported in scanner and auxiliary modules. The CVE filter may be lifted but for now peeling the issues into layers.

From an offensive perspective a reference gives possible approach to consider and is not necessarily a direct mapping. In framework references are often used to search for a module that may work for an approach but no guarantees are made, the idea here is to reference a CVE that arose from the attack vector to provide ideas on how to approach gaining further access. I am following that logic here and using references as a hint to possible usage of the reported finding (vuln). Possible misinterpretation of the information is there, I think it is out weighed by the value of reference to a known instance of the attack vector.

@jhart-r7
Copy link
Contributor

jhart-r7 commented Jun 6, 2017

Thanks, @jmartin-r7. That background helps.

@busterb busterb self-assigned this Jun 8, 2017
@busterb busterb merged commit b932aae into rapid7:master Jun 8, 2017
@busterb busterb added the module label Jun 8, 2017
@jmartin-tech jmartin-tech deleted the update_cve_report_vuln branch June 9, 2017 22:55
@jmartin-tech
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmartin-tech commented Jun 9, 2017

Release Notes

Where appropriate, scanner modules have been updated to include more CVE references. You can use these references to correlate a module to a vulnerability, which provides a jumping off point for your approach to gaining further access.

@alrosenthal-r7 alrosenthal-r7 added the rn-enhancement release notes enhancement label Jun 14, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
module rn-enhancement release notes enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants