Adobe has released another batch of security updates for its ubiquitous Flash Player software. This “critical” patch fixes at least 11 vulnerabilities, including one that reports suggest is being exploited in targeted email attacks.
In the advisory that accompanies this update, Adobe said “there are reports of malware attempting to exploit one of the vulnerabilities, CVE-2011-0627, in the wild via a Flash (.swf) file embedded in a Microsoft Word (.doc) or Microsoft Excel (.xls) file delivered as an email attachment targeting the Windows platform. However, to date, Adobe has not obtained a sample that successfully completes an attack.”
The vulnerabilities exist in Flash versions 10.2.159.1 and earlier for Windows, Mac, Linux and Solaris. To learn which version of Flash you have, visit this link. The new version for most platforms is 10.3.181.14; Android users should upgrade to Flash Player 10.3.185.21 available by browsing to the Android Marketplace on an Android phone; Google appears to have updated Chrome users automatically with this version of Flash back on May 6 (Chrome versions 11.0.696.68 and later have the newest Flash version).
A new crimeware kit for sale on the criminal underground makes it a simple point-and-click exercise to develop malicious software designed to turn Mac OSX computers into remotely controllable zombie bots. According to the vendor of this kit, it is somewhat interchangeable with existing crimeware kits made to attack Windows-based PCs.
The Mac malware builder in action.
KrebsOnSecurity has spilled a great deal of digital ink covering the damage wrought by ZeuS and SpyEye, probably the most popular crimeware kits built for Windows. A crimeware kit is a do-it-yourself package of tools that allow users to create custom versions of a malicious software strain capable of turning machines into bots that can be remotely controlled and harvested of financial and personal data. The bot code, generated by the crimeware kit’s “builder” component, typically is distributed via social engineering attacks in email and social networking sites, or is foisted by an exploit pack like Eleonore or Blackhole, which use hacked Web sites and browser flaws to quietly install the malware. Crimeware kits also come with a Web-based administration panel that allows the customer to manage and harvest data from infected PCs.
Crimekit makers have focused almost exclusively on the Windows platform, but today Danish IT security firm CSIS Security Groupblogged about a new kit named the Weyland-Yutani BOT that is being marketed as the first of its kind to attack the Mac OS X platform.
The seller of this crimeware kit claims his product supports form-grabbing in Firefox and Chrome, and says he plans to develop a Linux version and one for the iPad in the months ahead. The price? $1,000, with payment accepted only through virtual currencies Liberty Reserve or WebMoney.
The CSIS blog post contains a single screen shot of this kit’s bot builder, and references a demo video but doesn’t show it. I wanted to learn more about this kit, and so contacted the seller via a Russian language forum where he was advertising his wares.
The author said he is holding off on including Safari form-grabbing capability for now, complaining that there are “too many problems in that browser.” Still, he was kind enough to share a copy of a video that shows the kit’s builder and admin panel in action. Click the video link below to check that out.
ZeuS and SpyEye are popular in part because they support a variety of so-called “Web injects,” third-party plug-ins that let botmasters manipulate the content that victims see in their Web browsers. The most popular Web injects are designed to slightly alter the composition of various online banking Web sites in a bid to trick the victim customer into supplying additional identifying information that can be used later on to more fully compromise or hijack the account. According to the author, Web injects developed for ZeuS and SpyEye also are interchangeable with this Mac crimekit. “They need to be formatted and tagged, but yes, you can use Zeus injects with this bot,” he told me in an instant message conversation.
With new security updates from vendors like Adobe, Apple and Java coming out on a near-monthly basis, keeping your Web browser patched against the latest threats can be an arduous, worrisome chore. But a new browser plug-in from security firm Qualys makes it quick and painless to identify and patch outdated browser components.
The Qualys BrowserCheck plug-in works across multiple browsers — including Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome and Opera, on multiple operating systems. Install the plug-in, restart the browser, click the blue “Scan Now” button, and the results should let you know if there are any security or stability updates available for your installed plug-ins (a list of the plug-ins and add-ons that this program can check is available here). Clicking the blue “Fix It” button next to each action item listed fetches the appropriate installer from the vendor’s site and prompts you to download and install it. Re-scan as needed until the browser plug-ins are up to date.
Secunia has long had a very similar capability built into its free Personal Software Inspector program, but I realize not everyone wants to install a new program + Windows service to stay abreast of the latest patches (Secunia also offers a Web-based scan, but it requires Java, a plug-in that I have urged users to ditch if possible). The nice thing about Qualys’ plug-in approach is that it works not only on Windows, but also on Mac and Linux machines. On Windows 64-bit systems, only the 32-bit version of Internet Explorer is supported, and the plug-in thankfully nudges IE6 and IE7 users to upgrade to at least IE8.
Having the latest browser updates in one, easy-to-manage page is nice, but remember that the installers you download may by default come with additional programs bundled by the various plug-in makers. For example, when I updated Adobe’s Shockwave player on my test machine, the option to install Registry Mechanic was pre-checked. The same thing happened when I went to update my Foxit Reader plug-in, which wanted to set Ask.com as my default search provider, set ask.com as my home page, and have the Foxit toolbar added.
A new online resource aims to make it easier to gauge the relative security risk of using different types of popular software, such as Web browsers and media players.
Last month, I railed against the perennial practice of merely counting vulnerabilities in a software product as a reliable measure of its security: Understanding the comparative danger of using different software titles, I argued, requires collecting much more information about each, such as how long known flaws existed without patches. Now, vulnerability management firm Secunia says its new software fact sheets try to address that information gap, going beyond mere vulnerability counts and addressing the dearth of standardized and scheduled reporting of important security parameters for top software titles.
Secunia "fact sheet" on Adobe Reader security flaws.
“In the finance industry, for example, key performance parameters are reported yearly or quarterly to consistently provide interested parties, and the public, with relevant information for decision-making and risk assessment,” the company said.
In addition to listing the number of vulnerabilities reported and fixed by different software vendors, the fact sheets show the impact of a successful attack on the flaw; whether the security hole was patched or unpatched on the day it was disclosed; and information about the window of exploit opportunity between disclosure and the date a patch was issued.
The fact sheets allow some useful comparisons — such as between Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Opera. But I’m concerned they will mainly serve to fan the flame wars over which browser is more secure. The reality, as shown by the focus of exploit kits like Eleonore, Crimepack and SEO Sploit Pack, is that computer crooks don’t care which browser you’re using: They rely on users browsing the Web with outdated software, especially browser plugins like Java, Adobe Flash and Reader (all links lead to PDF files).
The news is based on a study released by University of California, San Diego researchers who found that a number of sites were “sniffing” the browsing history of visitors to record where they’d been.
This reconnaissance works because browsers display links to sites you’ve visited differently than ones you haven’t: By default, visited links are purple and unvisited links are blue. History-sniffing code running on a Web page simply checks to see if your browser displays links to specific URLs as purple or blue.
These are not new discoveries, but the fact that sites are using this technique to gather information from visitors seems to have caught many by surprise: A lawyer for two California residents said they filed suit against one of the sites named in the report — YouPorn — alleging that it violated consumer-protection laws by using the method.
As has been broadly reported for months, Web analytics companies are starting to market products that directly take advantage of this hack. Eric Petersonreported on an Israeli firm named Beencounter that openly sells a tool to Web site developers to query whether site visitors had previously visited up to 50 specific URLs.
Once or twice each year, some security company trots out a “study” that counts the number of vulnerabilities that were found and fixed in widely used software products over a given period and then pronounces the worst offenders in a Top 10 list that is supposed to tell us something useful about the relative security of these programs. And nearly without fail, the security press parrots this information as if it were newsworthy.
The reality is that these types of vulnerability count reports — like the one issued this week by application whitelisting firm Bit9 — seek to measure a complex, multi-faceted problem from a single dimension. It’s a bit like trying gauge the relative quality of different Swiss cheese brands by comparing the number of holes in each: The result offers almost no insight into the quality and integrity of the overall product, and in all likelihood leads to erroneous and — even humorous — conclusions.
The Bit9 report is more notable for what it fails to measure than for what it does, which is precious little: The applications included in its 2010 “Dirty Dozen” Top Vulnerable Applications list had to:
Be legitimate, non-malicious applications;
Have at least one critical vulnerability that was reported between Jan. 1, 2010 and Oct. 21, 2010; and
Be assigned a severity rating of high (between 7 and 10 on a 10-point scale in which 10 is the most severe).
The report did not seek to answer any of the questions that help inform how concerned we should be about these vulnerabilities, such as:
Was the vulnerability discovered in-house — or was the vendor first alerted to the flaw by external researchers (or attackers)?
How long after being initially notified or discovering the flaw did it take each vendor to fix the problem?
Which products had the broadest window of vulnerability, from notification to patch?
How many of the vulnerabilities were exploitable using code that was publicly available at the time the vendor patched the problem?
How many of the vulnerabilities were being actively exploited at the time the vendor issued a patch?
Which vendors make use of auto-update capabilities? For those vendors that include auto-update capabilities, how long does it take “n” percentage of customers to be updated to the latest, patched version?
The Web site for the Nobel Peace Prize has been serving up malicious software that takes advantage of a newly-discovered security hole in Mozilla Firefox, computer security experts warned today.
Oslo-based Norman ASAwarned that visitors who browsed the Nobel Prize site with Firefox while the attack was active early Tuesday may have had malicious software silently installed on their computers without warning.
Mozilla just posted a blog entry saying it is aware of a critical vulnerability in Firefox 3.5 and 3.6, and that it has received reports from several security research firms that exploit code leveraging this vulnerability has been detected in the wild. The software firm isn’t saying much more about the flaw for now.
Mozilla says it is developing a fix, which it plans to deploy as soon as it has been tested. In the meantime, Firefox users can mitigate the threat from this flaw by using a script-blocking add-on like NoScript.
“Shellcode and a large heapspray is involved,” Fagerland wrote. “The script that does this checks for the following versions:
…and it checks that it is NOT running Vista or Win7 (Windows versions 6.0 and 6.1), pretty much limiting the attack to XP-family OS’s. The underlying vulnerability is confirmed to also affect Firefox 3.5x series, but we have not seen exploit code that attacks this.”
Update, Oct. 27, 11:50 p.m. ET: Mozilla has opened up the bug report on this flaw.
Both Adobe and Apple have released security updates or alerts in the past 24 hours. Adobe pushed out a critical patch that fixes at least 20 vulnerabilities in its Shockwave Player, while Apple issued updates to correct 13 flaws in Mac OS X systems.
The Adobe patch applies to Shockwave Player 22.214.171.1249 and earlier on Windows and Mac operating systems. Adobe recommends that users upgrade to Shockwave Player 126.96.36.1992, available at this link. But before you do that, you might want to visit this link, which will tell you whether or not you need to update, and indeed whether you currently have Shockwave installed at all. If you visit it and don’t see an animation, then you don’t have Shockwave (and probably aren’t missing it either).
One other note about Shockwave: Firefox users may notice a “Shockwave Flash” entry when they click “Tools,” “Add-0ns,” and then the “Plugins” tab. For reasons that are too complicated to explain in one breath, this is actually Adobe’s name for its regular Flash player, which most people probably do want installed because can be difficult to browse and use the Internet without it. By the way, if you haven’t updated your Flash Player in a while, Adobe issued a new version of that software on Aug 10 that plugged a half dozen security holes.
Apple’s update affects Mac OS X Server 10.5, Mac OS X 10.5.8 , Mac OS X Server 10.6 , Mac OS X 10.6.4and is available via Software Update or from Apple Downloads.
Mozilla has shipped a new version of Firefox that corrects a number of vulnerabilities in the browser. Separately, a new version of Opera is available that fixes at least five security flaws in the software.
Firefox version 3.6.4 addresses seven security holes ranging from lesser bugs to critical flaws. Mozilla says this latest version of Firefox also does a better job of handling plugin crashes, so that if a plugin causes problems when the user browses a site, Firefox will simply let the plugin crash instead of tying up the entire browser process. Firefox should auto-update (usually on your next restart of the browser), but you can force an update check by clicking “Help,” and then “Check for Updates” (when I did this, I noticed that in its place was the “Apply Downloaded Update Now,” option, indicating that Firefox had already fetched this upgrade.
Mozilla also shipped, 3.5.10, an update that fixes at least nine security vulnerabilities in its 3.5.x line of Firefox. The software maker will only continue to support this version of Firefox for another couple of months, so if you’re on the 3.5.x line, you might consider upgrading soon (don’t know which version you’re using, click “Help” and “About Mozilla Firefox”).
Opera’s update brings the browser to version 10.54, which corrects a few critical vulnerabilities. Opera now includes an auto-update feature, so Opera users may already have been notified about this update (I wasn’t). In any case, Opera is urging users to upgrade to the latest version, available here.
Mozilla‘s Plugin Check Web site, which inspects Firefox browsers for outdated and insecure plugins, now checks other browsers — including Apple‘s Safari, Google‘s Chrome, Opera, and (to a far lesser extent) even Internet Explorer.
The Plugin Check site looks for a range of outdated plugins, and now works on Safari 4, Google Chrome 4 and up, Mozilla Firefox 3.0 and up, and Opera 10.5. This is a nice idea, and it works to some degree, but the page couldn’t locate version information for about seven of ten plugins I currently have in Firefox.
Similarly it detected version information for three out of nine of my plugins on my Macbook Pro’s Safari installation, although it helpfully informed me of an outdated Flash player on my Mac (doh!). It also detected version numbers for just two of 11 plugins apparently installed in my Google Chrome browser.
Mozilla’s Plugin Check also partially supports IE7 and IE8, although when I visited it with IE, I received an interesting result. I went there with a virgin install of IE8 that didn’t have any third party plugins installed. But rather than tell me I was secure because it could detect no plugins at all, Mozilla’s site actually prompted me to install Adobe’s Flash Player (screen shot below), one of the most-attacked browser plugins of all.
It would be great to see this technology start to detect more plugins. In the meantime, if you’re running Windows and want help keeping up to date with the latest patches, I’d recommend Secunia‘s Personal Software Inspector, a program that periodically reminds you about insecure programs and plugins, and even includes links to download the latest patches.