tcpreplay-4.5.1-1.el8

Read Time:2 Minute, 52 Second

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b9b7864353

Packages in this update:

tcpreplay-4.5.1-1.el8

Update description:

Announcing v4.5.1

This release contains contributions from a record number of new contributors. This is greatly appreciated since I am a team of one, and do Tcpreplay maintenance in my spare time.

There are many bug fixes and new features. Most notable features:

AF_XDP socket support – if you have a newer Linux kernel, you will be able to transmit at line rates without having to install 3rd party kernel modules (e.g. netmap, PF_RING)
-w tcpreplay option – this overrides the -i option, and allows you to write to a PCAP file rather than an interface
–include and –exclude tcpreplay options – allows replay of a list of specific packet numbers to replay. This may slow things down, so consider using in combination with -w.
–fixhdrlen tcpreplay option – added to control action on packet length changes
-W tcpreplay option – suppress warnings when replaying
SLL2( Linux “cooked” capture encapsulation v2)
Haiku support

What’s Changed

Add support for LINUX_SLL2 by @btriller in #728
Feature #727 – Linux SLL v2 by @fklassen in #820
Bug #779 – honour overflow for all PPS values by @fklassen in #821
AF_XDP socket extension using libxdp api by @plangarbalint in #797
Feature #822 – AF_XDP socket extension by @fklassen in #823
Nanosec accurate packet processing by @plangarbalint in #796
Handle IPv6 fragment extension header by @ChuckCottrill in #832
Bug #837 – handle IPv6 fragment extension header by @fklassen in #838
Feature #796 – nanosecond packet processing by @fklassen in #836
configure.ac: unify search dirs for pcap and add lib32 by @shr-project in #819
Feature #839 – add pull request template by @fklassen in #840
ipv6 – add check for extension header length by @GabrielGanne in #842
Bug #827 PR #842 IPv6 extension header – staging by @fklassen in #859
add check for empty cidr by @GabrielGanne in #843
Bug #824 and PR #843: check for empty CIDR by @fklassen in #860
Add option to turn on/off fix packet header length by @ChuckCottrill in #846
Bug #703 #844 PR #846: optionally fix packet header length –fixhdrlen by @fklassen in #861
Bug 863: fix nansecond timestamp regression by @fklassen in #865
autotools – AC_HELP_STRING is obsolete in 2.70 by @GabrielGanne in #856
some Haiku support by @infrastation in #847
configure.ac: do not run conftest in case of cross compilation by @ChenQi1989 in #849
dlt_jnpr_ether_cleanup: check config before cleanup by @Marsman1996 in #851
Fix recursive tcpedit cleanup by @GabrielGanne in #855
Bug #813: back out PR #855 by @fklassen in #866
Bug #867 – run regfree() on close by @fklassen in #868
Bug #869 tcpprep memory leak include exclude by @fklassen in #870
Bug #811 – add check for invalid jnpr header length by @fklassen in #872
Bug #792 avoid assertion and other fixes by @fklassen in #873
Bug #844 tap: ignore TUNSETIFF EBUSY errors by @fklassen in #874
Bug #876 – add missing free_umem_and_xsk function by @fklassen in #877
Feature #878 – add -w / –suppress-warning option by @fklassen in #879
Bug #835 false unsupported dlt warnings on 802.3 (Ethernet I) and LLC by @fklassen in #880
Feature #884 include exclude options by @fklassen in #885
Feature #853 direct traffic to pcap by @fklassen in #871
Feature #853 restore missing -P command by @fklassen in #887
Bug #888: check for map == NULL in cidr.c by @fklassen in #889

Read More

Hacking Scientific Citations

Read Time:1 Minute, 23 Second

Some scholars are inflating their reference counts by sneaking them into metadata:

Citations of scientific work abide by a standardized referencing system: Each reference explicitly mentions at least the title, authors’ names, publication year, journal or conference name, and page numbers of the cited publication. These details are stored as metadata, not visible in the article’s text directly, but assigned to a digital object identifier, or DOI—a unique identifier for each scientific publication.

References in a scientific publication allow authors to justify methodological choices or present the results of past studies, highlighting the iterative and collaborative nature of science.

However, we found through a chance encounter that some unscrupulous actors have added extra references, invisible in the text but present in the articles’ metadata, when they submitted the articles to scientific databases. The result? Citation counts for certain researchers or journals have skyrocketed, even though these references were not cited by the authors in their articles.

[…]

In the journals published by Technoscience Academy, at least 9% of recorded references were “sneaked references.” These additional references were only in the metadata, distorting citation counts and giving certain authors an unfair advantage. Some legitimate references were also lost, meaning they were not present in the metadata.

In addition, when analyzing the sneaked references, we found that they highly benefited some researchers. For example, a single researcher who was associated with Technoscience Academy benefited from more than 3,000 additional illegitimate citations. Some journals from the same publisher benefited from a couple hundred additional sneaked citations.

Be careful what you’re measuring, because that’s what you’ll get. Make sure it’s what you actually want.

Read More

Disney hacked? NullBulge claims to have stolen 1.1 TB of data from internal Slack channels

Read Time:24 Second

A group of hacktivists claims to have breached the IT systems of Disney, and stolen a gigantic 1.1 terabytes worth of data from the entertainment giant’s internal Slack messaging channels.

The hacking group, which calls itself NullBulge, posted on an underground hacking forum that it had hoped to postpone announcing the breach until it had accessed more information, “but our insider man got cold feet and kicked us out.”

Read more in my article on the Hot for Security blog.

Read More

USN-6898-1: Linux kernel vulnerabilities

Read Time:4 Minute, 18 Second

Ziming Zhang discovered that the DRM driver for VMware Virtual GPU did not
properly handle certain error conditions, leading to a NULL pointer
dereference. A local attacker could possibly trigger this vulnerability to
cause a denial of service. (CVE-2022-38096)

Gui-Dong Han discovered that the software RAID driver in the Linux kernel
contained a race condition, leading to an integer overflow vulnerability. A
privileged attacker could possibly use this to cause a denial of service
(system crash). (CVE-2024-23307)

It was discovered that a race condition existed in the Bluetooth subsystem
in the Linux kernel when modifying certain settings values through debugfs.
A privileged local attacker could use this to cause a denial of service.
(CVE-2024-24857, CVE-2024-24858, CVE-2024-24859)

Bai Jiaju discovered that the Xceive XC4000 silicon tuner device driver in
the Linux kernel contained a race condition, leading to an integer overflow
vulnerability. An attacker could possibly use this to cause a denial of
service (system crash). (CVE-2024-24861)

Chenyuan Yang discovered that the Unsorted Block Images (UBI) flash device
volume management subsystem did not properly validate logical eraseblock
sizes in certain situations. An attacker could possibly use this to cause a
denial of service (system crash). (CVE-2024-25739)

Several security issues were discovered in the Linux kernel.
An attacker could possibly use these to compromise the system.
This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems:
– ARM64 architecture;
– RISC-V architecture;
– x86 architecture;
– Block layer subsystem;
– Accessibility subsystem;
– Android drivers;
– Bluetooth drivers;
– Clock framework and drivers;
– Data acquisition framework and drivers;
– Cryptographic API;
– DMA engine subsystem;
– GPU drivers;
– HID subsystem;
– I2C subsystem;
– IRQ chip drivers;
– Multiple devices driver;
– VMware VMCI Driver;
– MMC subsystem;
– Network drivers;
– Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA) driver;
– Device tree and open firmware driver;
– PCI subsystem;
– S/390 drivers;
– SCSI drivers;
– Freescale SoC drivers;
– Trusted Execution Environment drivers;
– TTY drivers;
– USB subsystem;
– VFIO drivers;
– Framebuffer layer;
– Xen hypervisor drivers;
– File systems infrastructure;
– BTRFS file system;
– Ext4 file system;
– FAT file system;
– Network file system client;
– Network file system server daemon;
– NILFS2 file system;
– Pstore file system;
– SMB network file system;
– UBI file system;
– Netfilter;
– BPF subsystem;
– Core kernel;
– PCI iomap interfaces;
– Memory management;
– B.A.T.M.A.N. meshing protocol;
– Bluetooth subsystem;
– Ethernet bridge;
– Networking core;
– IPv4 networking;
– IPv6 networking;
– MAC80211 subsystem;
– IEEE 802.15.4 subsystem;
– NFC subsystem;
– Open vSwitch;
– RDS protocol;
– Network traffic control;
– SMC sockets;
– Unix domain sockets;
– eXpress Data Path;
– Key management;
– ALSA SH drivers;
– KVM core;
(CVE-2024-35944, CVE-2024-35789, CVE-2024-35819, CVE-2024-35796,
CVE-2024-35817, CVE-2024-35950, CVE-2024-35851, CVE-2024-35918,
CVE-2024-26961, CVE-2024-35990, CVE-2024-26629, CVE-2024-35823,
CVE-2024-35922, CVE-2024-26969, CVE-2024-36007, CVE-2024-35989,
CVE-2024-35822, CVE-2024-26654, CVE-2024-35879, CVE-2024-27395,
CVE-2024-35855, CVE-2024-27008, CVE-2024-26988, CVE-2024-35912,
CVE-2024-35900, CVE-2024-26956, CVE-2024-27018, CVE-2024-26922,
CVE-2024-26950, CVE-2024-35849, CVE-2024-26999, CVE-2024-36006,
CVE-2024-26970, CVE-2024-26937, CVE-2024-35821, CVE-2024-35982,
CVE-2024-35907, CVE-2024-35884, CVE-2024-26929, CVE-2024-35905,
CVE-2024-35915, CVE-2024-35910, CVE-2024-35886, CVE-2024-35930,
CVE-2024-36008, CVE-2024-27004, CVE-2024-26984, CVE-2024-35877,
CVE-2024-35958, CVE-2024-35895, CVE-2024-26981, CVE-2024-27393,
CVE-2024-35973, CVE-2024-36029, CVE-2024-26931, CVE-2024-35934,
CVE-2024-35902, CVE-2024-27013, CVE-2024-26951, CVE-2024-35901,
CVE-2024-35938, CVE-2024-35936, CVE-2024-26958, CVE-2024-27059,
CVE-2024-27001, CVE-2024-35825, CVE-2024-35925, CVE-2024-36004,
CVE-2024-26960, CVE-2024-26923, CVE-2024-35927, CVE-2024-27009,
CVE-2024-35847, CVE-2024-35871, CVE-2024-27020, CVE-2024-26811,
CVE-2024-35897, CVE-2024-26994, CVE-2024-35935, CVE-2024-35978,
CVE-2024-26934, CVE-2024-26828, CVE-2023-52699, CVE-2024-26810,
CVE-2024-35890, CVE-2024-35955, CVE-2024-35899, CVE-2024-35885,
CVE-2024-36020, CVE-2024-26813, CVE-2024-26814, CVE-2024-27016,
CVE-2024-35852, CVE-2024-27437, CVE-2024-35933, CVE-2024-35857,
CVE-2024-26973, CVE-2024-35813, CVE-2024-27015, CVE-2024-35791,
CVE-2024-26687, CVE-2024-35976, CVE-2024-35853, CVE-2024-35969,
CVE-2024-35940, CVE-2024-35809, CVE-2024-35888, CVE-2023-52488,
CVE-2024-26926, CVE-2024-36005, CVE-2024-26996, CVE-2024-27000,
CVE-2024-26957, CVE-2024-26974, CVE-2024-26977, CVE-2024-36031,
CVE-2024-26966, CVE-2024-35815, CVE-2024-35960, CVE-2024-35806,
CVE-2024-26642, CVE-2023-52880, CVE-2024-26925, CVE-2024-26989,
CVE-2024-26965, CVE-2024-35997, CVE-2024-26993, CVE-2024-26955,
CVE-2024-35872, CVE-2024-35893, CVE-2024-35896, CVE-2024-35805,
CVE-2024-27019, CVE-2024-35898, CVE-2024-35970, CVE-2024-35988,
CVE-2024-35854, CVE-2024-26976, CVE-2024-35984, CVE-2024-35804,
CVE-2024-35807, CVE-2024-26964, CVE-2024-36025, CVE-2024-27396,
CVE-2024-26935, CVE-2024-35785, CVE-2024-26812, CVE-2024-26817)

Read More

Researchers: Weak Security Defaults Enabled Squarespace Domains Hijacks

Read Time:3 Minute, 56 Second

At least a dozen organizations with domain names at domain registrar Squarespace saw their websites hijacked last week. Squarespace bought all assets of Google Domains a year ago, but many customers still haven’t set up their new accounts. Experts say malicious hackers learned they could commandeer any migrated Squarespace accounts that hadn’t yet been registered, merely by supplying an email address tied to an existing domain.

Until this past weekend, Squarespace’s website had an option to log in via email.

The Squarespace domain hijacks, which took place between July 9 and July 12, appear to have mostly targeted cryptocurrency businesses, including Celer Network, Compound Finance, Pendle Finance, and Unstoppable Domains. In some cases, the attackers were able to redirect the hijacked domains to phishing sites set up to steal visitors’ cryptocurrency funds.

New York City-based Squarespace purchased roughly 10 million domain names from Google Domains in June 2023, and it has been gradually migrating those domains to its service ever since. Squarespace has not responded to a request for comment, nor has it issued a statement about the attacks.

But an analysis released by security experts at Metamask and Paradigm finds the most likely explanation for what happened is that Squarespace assumed all users migrating from Google Domains would select the social login options — such “Continue with Google” or “Continue with Apple” — as opposed to the “Continue with email” choice.

Taylor Monahan, lead product manager at Metamask, said Squarespace never accounted for the possibility that a threat actor might sign up for an account using an email associated with a recently-migrated domain before the legitimate email holder created the account themselves.

“Thus nothing actually stops them from trying to login with an email,” Monahan told KrebsOnSecurity. “And since there’s no password on the account, it just shoots them to the ‘create password for your new account’ flow. And since the account is half-initialized on the backend, they now have access to the domain in question.”

Sometime in the last 24 hours, Squarespace removed the ability for people to create an account with just an email address. That option was available when KrebsOnSecurity created a test Squarespace account on Saturday (it’s unclear whether Squarespace ever sent a confirmation email from that signup, but I still haven’t received one).

What’s more, Monahan said, Squarespace did not require email verification for new accounts created with a password.

“The domains being migrated from Google to Squarespace are known,” Monahan said. “It’s either public or easily discernible info which email addresses have admin of a domain. And if that email never sets up their account on Squarespace — say because the billing admin left the company five years ago or folks just ignored the email — anyone who enters that email@domain in the squarespace form now has full access to control to the domain.”

The researchers say some Squarespace domains that were migrated over also could be hijacked if attackers discovered the email addresses for less privileged user accounts tied to the domain, such as “domain manager,” which likewise has the ability to transfer a domain or point it to a different Internet address.

Squarespace says domain owners and domain managers have many of the same privileges, including the ability to move a domain or manage the site’s domain name server (DNS) settings.

Monahan said the migration has left domain owners with fewer options to secure and monitor their accounts.

“Squarespace can’t support users who need any control or insight into the activity being performed in their account or domain,” Monahan said. “You basically have no control over the access different folks have. You don’t have any audit logs. You don’t get email notifications for some actions. The owner doesn’t get email notification for actions taken by a ‘domain manager.’ This is absolutely insane if you’re used to and expecting the controls Google provides.”

The researchers have published a comprehensive guide for locking down Squarespace user accounts, which urges Squarespace users to enable multi-factor authentication (disabled during the migration).

“Determining what emails have access to your new Squarespace account is step 1,” the help guide advises. “Most teams DO NOT REALIZE these accounts even exist, let alone theoretically have access.”

The guide also recommends removing unnecessary Squarespace user accounts, and disabling reseller access in Google Workspace.

“If you bought Google Workspace via Google Domains, Squarespace is now your authorized reseller,” the help document explains. “This means that anyone with access to your Squarespace account also has a backdoor into your Google Workspace unless you explicitly disable it by following the instructions here, which you should do. It’s easier to secure one account than two.”

Read More

USN-6897-1: Ghostscript vulnerabilities

Read Time:1 Minute, 6 Second

It was discovered that Ghostscript incorrectly handled certain long PDF
filter names. An attacker could possibly use this issue to cause
Ghostscript to crash, resulting in a denial of service. This issue only
affected Ubuntu 22.04 LTS and Ubuntu 24.04 LTS. (CVE-2024-29506)

It was discovered that Ghostscript incorrectly handled certain API
parameters. An attacker could possibly use this issue to cause Ghostscript
to crash, resulting in a denial of service. This issue only affected Ubuntu
24.04 LTS. (CVE-2024-29507)

It was discovered that Ghostscript incorrectly handled certain BaseFont
names. An attacker could use this issue to cause Ghostscript to crash,
resulting in a denial of service, or possibly execute arbitrary code.
(CVE-2024-29508)

It was discovered that Ghostscript incorrectly handled certain PDF
passwords that contained NULL bytes. An attacker could use this issue to
cause Ghostscript to crash, resulting in a denial of service, or possibly
execute arbitrary code. This issue only affected Ubuntu 22.04 LTS and
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS. (CVE-2024-29509)

It was discovered that Ghostscript incorrectly handled certain certain file
paths when doing OCR. An attacker could use this issue to read arbitrary
files and write error messages to arbitrary files. This issue only affected
Ubuntu 22.04 LTS and Ubuntu 24.04 LTS. (CVE-2024-29511)

Read More

Smart Hotel Technologies and the Cybersecurity Risks They Bring

Read Time:5 Minute, 46 Second

The content of this post is solely the responsibility of the author.  LevelBlue does not adopt or endorse any of the views, positions, or information provided by the author in this article. 

Smart technologies are being quickly adopted by the hospitality sector in order to improve guest experiences and improve operations. However, hotels are also popular targets for cybercriminals due to their extensive collection of data and increased connectivity.

These linked devices have flaws that could allow for illegal access and data breaches, risking the security and privacy of visitors. This article examines the cybersecurity risks related to these technologies and provides helpful advice on how passengers may protect their data while taking advantage of these benefits.

Smart Technologies and the Risks that They Bring

A new wave of technology in the hotel sector promises to improve visitor experiences and operational effectiveness. Smart technologies like IoT-enabled gadgets and AI-powered services are being incorporated into modern hotels. These include mobile check-in, keyless entry for a quick, contactless experience, AI-powered chatbots and automated concierge systems for smooth guest interactions, smart in-room entertainment systems that allow guests to control various aspects of their environment via voice commands or smartphone apps, and smart thermostats for customized climate control.

While these innovations significantly enhance convenience and personalization, they also introduce considerable cybersecurity risks. The interconnected nature of these devices and the vast amounts of data they handle make hotels and Airbnb rooms attractive targets for cybercriminals.

Here are some of the most dangerous cybersecurity threats facing modern hospitality settings.

Data Breaches

Data breaches are a major concern in the hospitality industry due to the vast amounts of sensitive guest information collected and stored. High-profile incidents, such as the Marriott data breach in 2018, which affected up to 500 million guest records, underscore the severity of this threat. Compromised data often includes personal identification details, credit card information, and even passport numbers, leading to significant financial and reputational damage for the affected hotels and Airbnb hosts​.

IoT Vulnerabilities

The globalization of IoT devices in accommodation businesses like hotels and Airbnb properties increases the attack surface for cybercriminals. Each connected device represents a potential entry point for hackers. For instance, vulnerabilities in smart thermostats or lighting systems can be exploited to gain access to the broader network, compromising other critical systems and guest data​.

Phishing and Social Engineering

Phishing attacks and social engineering tactics are prevalent in the hospitality industry. Cybercriminals often target staff and guests with deceptive emails or messages designed to steal login credentials or other sensitive information. These attacks can lead to unauthorized access to systems and data breaches​.

Point of Sale (POS) Systems

POS systems handle numerous financial transactions, making them attractive to hackers. Attacks on POS systems can involve malware that captures credit card information before it is encrypted. Such incidents have occurred at several major hotel chains, including Hilton, which faced significant data breaches due to vulnerabilities in their POS systems​.

Hotel and Airbnb Wi-Fi Networks

Unsecured Wi-Fi networks in hotels and Airbnb rentals pose significant risks to both guests and operations. Cybercriminals can exploit vulnerabilities in these networks to intercept data transmitted by guests or to launch attacks on internal systems. This can lead to significant data breaches and operational disruptions​.

Third-Party Vendors

Hotels and Airbnb hosts often rely on third-party vendors for various services, including payment processing and guest management systems. These vendors can introduce additional cybersecurity risks if they do not adhere to robust security standards. A breach at a third-party vendor can compromise data and systems, making it vital to ensure partners follow strict cybersecurity protocols​.

Ransomware

Ransomware attacks, where hackers lock systems and demand a ransom to restore access, are becoming increasingly common. These attacks can cripple operations, preventing guests from checking in or out and disrupting services. The financial and operational impact of ransomware attacks can be devastating, leading to significant losses and reputational damage​.

Cybersecurity Best Practices for Hotels

While travelers can adopt practical tips to protect their personal information—such as using secure networks, creating strong passwords, monitoring bank statements, and being cautious with personal information—the primary responsibility for cybersecurity rests with the hotels. According to John Nousis, a seasoned professional in the hospitality industry and co-founder of Travelmyth, a hotel search engine focusing on travelers’ specific interests and needs, “In today’s digital age, ensuring the cybersecurity of our guests is as important as providing them with a comfortable stay. At Travelmyth, we help travelers, especially professionals, find hotels that meet their specific needs, including those with strong cybersecurity measures.”

But how can hotels achieve the best possible security for their clients? There are certain practices every hotel should follow in 2024 according to Mr. Nousis. Here are some of his suggestions:

Network Segmentation

Hotels should separate guest and administrative networks to prevent unauthorized access. By isolating guest Wi-Fi from internal systems, hotels can limit the potential damage of a cyber attack. This approach helps contain breaches and protects sensitive operational data from being accessed through guest networks​.

Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)

Implementing MFA adds an extra layer of security to hotel systems. Requiring multiple forms of authentication, such as a password and biometric verification, significantly enhances protection against unauthorized access. This is particularly important for accessing sensitive data and critical systems​.

Regular Security Audits and Updates

Regular security audits help identify vulnerabilities in hotel systems. Keeping software and hardware up-to-date ensures that known security issues are addressed promptly. Frequent updates and patches are essential to protect against the latest cyber threats​.

Employee Training

Educating staff about cybersecurity threats and best practices is crucial. Regular training sessions can help employees recognize phishing attempts and other social engineering tactics. A well-informed staff is a strong line of defense against cyber attacks​.

“By adopting these cybersecurity best practices, hotels can significantly reduce the risk of cyber threats and ensure a safer environment for their guests. Travelers, meanwhile, should remain aware and follow basic cybersecurity tips to protect their personal information while enjoying these modern conveniences,” Mr. Nousis concludes.

Conclusion

The cybersecurity environment in the hotel sector will change as smart technologies continue to progress. Though they are going to keep improving visitor experiences, AI systems and IoT devices will also become more advanced and provide new security risks. For the protection of their visitors’ data, hotels need to take the initiative to have strong cybersecurity safeguards in place. In this continuous effort, regular updates, network segmentation, multi-factor authentication, and comprehensive employee training serve as key factors.

The future will demand even more awareness and innovation in cybersecurity practices. By staying ahead of potential threats and continuously improving their defenses, hotels can ensure that the benefits of smart technologies are enjoyed safely. Both hotels and travelers must remain informed and cautious, embracing the conveniences of modern technology while prioritizing security.

Read More