GFI Software

Welcome to the GFI Software community forum! For support please open a ticket from https://support.gfi.com.

Home » GFI User Forums » Kerio Control » Shellshock Vulnerability (Are any Kerio products vulnerable?)
Shellshock Vulnerability [message #116332] Thu, 25 September 2014 20:10 Go to next message
erikv
Messages: 6
Registered: July 2006
Is it possible to detect malicious traffic passing thru a Control firewall to mitigate this vulnerability?
Re: Shellshock Vulnerability [message #116337 is a reply to message #116332] Thu, 25 September 2014 21:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bhancepdx is currently offline  bhancepdx
Messages: 4
Registered: September 2014
Location: Portland
There is a basic Shell shock snort rule out from volexity dot com

alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"Volex Possible CVE-2014-6271 bash Vulnerability Requested (header) "; flow:established,to_server; content:"() {"; http_header; threshold:type limit, track by_src, count 1, seconds 120; sid:2014092401;)

I have tested this in KWF by editing snort's used.rules and then verifying that tests from shellshock detectify dot com are ID'd.

This of course is testing for a very basic string and is not a comprehensive rule.

Right now this alert doesn't appear in the SNORT rules being pulled to my kerio and have to be inserted manually. I'm trying to determine when the SNORT rules rolled out to Kerio Firewall will contain a SHELLSHOCK rule
Re: Shellshock Vulnerability [message #116363 is a reply to message #116337] Fri, 26 September 2014 20:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bhancepdx is currently offline  bhancepdx
Messages: 4
Registered: September 2014
Location: Portland
A second update:

Snort community rules now contain 4 rules for "OS-OTHER Bash CGI environment variable injection attempt"

They are:
drop tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"OS-OTHER Bash CGI environment variable injection attempt"; flow:to_server,established; content:"%3D%28%29+%7B"; fast_pattern:only; metadata:policy balanced-ips drop, policy security-ips drop, ruleset community, service http; reference:cve,2014-6271; reference:cve,2014-7169; classtype:web-application-activity; sid:31975; rev:3;)
drop tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"OS-OTHER Bash CGI environment variable injection attempt"; flow:to_server,established; content:"() {"; fast_pattern:only; http_client_body; metadata:policy balanced-ips drop, policy security-ips drop, ruleset community, service http; reference:cve,2014-6271; reference:cve,2014-7169; classtype:web-application-activity; sid:31976; rev:3;)
drop tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"OS-OTHER Bash CGI environment variable injection attempt"; flow:to_server,established; content:"() {"; fast_pattern:only; http_uri; metadata:policy balanced-ips drop, policy security-ips drop, ruleset community, service http; reference:cve,2014-6271; reference:cve,2014-7169; classtype:web-application-activity; sid:31977; rev:3;)
drop tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"OS-OTHER Bash CGI environment variable injection attempt"; flow:to_server,established; content:"() {"; fast_pattern:only; http_header; metadata:policy balanced-ips drop, policy security-ips drop, ruleset community, service http; reference:cve,2014-6271; reference:cve,2014-7169; classtype:web-application-activity; sid:31978; rev:3;)


Re: Shellshock Vulnerability [message #116364 is a reply to message #116363] Fri, 26 September 2014 20:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
erikv
Messages: 6
Registered: July 2006
Are these 4 rules being used/downloaded by Control firewall?
Re: Shellshock Vulnerability [message #116365 is a reply to message #116364] Fri, 26 September 2014 21:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bhancepdx is currently offline  bhancepdx
Messages: 4
Registered: September 2014
Location: Portland
Not that I am aware of, no. My latest update did not contain them.

I'm testing manual edits, and getting around the way Kerio manages its internal link between sort rules and high/medium/low threats by doing this:

1) ID'ing 2 "drop" rules with "high" threat standing -- specifically these

SID:3000001
SID:2019147

2) Deleting the 2 rules with these SID's from the Kerio used.rules file

Adding these two test rules:

drop tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"ShellShock Possible CVE-2014-6271 bash Vulnerability Requested (header) "; flow:established,to_server; content:"%3D%28%29+%7B"; http_header; threshold:type limit, track by_src, count 1, seconds 120; sid:2019147;)
drop tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"ShellShock Possible CVE-2014-6271 bash Vulnerability Requested (header) "; flow:established,to_server; content:"() {"; http_header; threshold:type limit, track by_src, count 1, seconds 120; sid:3000001;)


When I do this, and test with shellshock dot brandonpotter dot com, I get these in my security logs:

[26/Sep/2014 12:07:20] IPS: Packet drop, severity: High, Rule ID: 1:3000001 KERIO IPS Test Signature - High Severity, proto:TCP, ip/port:75.127.84.182:55961 (hrtoolbox.com) -> 10.0.41.200:80
[26/Sep/2014 12:09:20] IPS: Packet drop, severity: High, Rule ID: 1:3000001 KERIO IPS Test Signature - High Severity, proto:TCP, ip/port:75.127.84.182:49339 (hrtoolbox.com) -> 10.0.41.200:80

Note that it says "KERIO IPS Test Signature" and not "ShellShock Possible CVE-2014-6271 bash Vulnerability Requested (header)" because I stole SID 3000001 from the "KERIO IPS Test Signature"

I don't recommend doing this. I am just testing, and I am making some assumption
Re: Shellshock Vulnerability [message #116379 is a reply to message #116365] Mon, 29 September 2014 03:08 Go to previous message
mlee (Kerio)
Messages: 211
Registered: October 2012
Location: Sydney
Kerio Control box is not vulnerable TO Shell Shock.

Details about this vulnerability and its impact on Kerio products can be found at http://tinyurl.com/KerioShellShock

Interesting modification you are doing with Snort, if it works on your environment, please do post in the forums to benefit other Kerio Control users.

M.

Edit: Added URL for more info.


PTSD. BP. OCD. ASPD. BPD. Certified.

[Updated on: Mon, 29 September 2014 07:34]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Fair QoS desired feature
Next Topic: Users get UDP traffic is probably blocked message lots of times
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Jun 06 02:04:41 CEST 2023

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02193 seconds