CWE-1021 – Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames

Read Time:1 Minute, 48 Second

Description

The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain, which can lead to user confusion about which interface the user is interacting with.

A web application is expected to place restrictions on whether it is allowed to be rendered within frames, iframes, objects, embed or applet elements. Without the restrictions, users can be tricked into interacting with the application when they were not intending to.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-441
CWE-610
CWE-451

 

Consequences

Access Control: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism, Read Application Data, Modify Application Data

An attacker can trick a user into performing actions that are masked and hidden from the user’s view. The impact varies widely, depending on the functionality of the underlying application. For example, in a social media application, clickjacking could be used to trik the user into changing privacy settings.

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

This defense-in-depth technique can be used to prevent the improper usage of frames in web applications. It prioritizes the valid sources of data to be loaded into the application through the usage of declarative policies. Based on which implementation of Content Security Policy is in use, the developer should use the “frame-ancestors” directive or the “frame-src” directive to mitigate this weakness. Both directives allow for the placement of restrictions when it comes to allowing embedded content.

CVE References

  • CVE-2017-7440
    • E-mail preview feature in a desktop application allows clickjacking attacks via a crafted e-mail message
  • CVE-2017-5697
    • Hardware/firmware product has insufficient clickjacking protection in its web user interface
  • CVE-2017-4015
    • Clickjacking in data-loss prevention product via HTTP response header.
  • CVE-2016-2496
    • Tapjacking in permission dialog for mobile OS allows access of private storage using a partially-overlapping window.
  • CVE-2015-1241
    • Tapjacking in web browser related to page navigation and touch/gesture events.
  • CVE-2017-0492
    • System UI in mobile OS allows a malicious application to create a UI overlay of the entire screen to gain privileges.

CWE-102 – Struts: Duplicate Validation Forms

Read Time:46 Second

Description

The application uses multiple validation forms with the same name, which might cause the Struts Validator to validate a form that the programmer does not expect.

If two validation forms have the same name, the Struts Validator arbitrarily chooses one of the forms to use for input validation and discards the other. This decision might not correspond to the programmer’s expectations, possibly leading to resultant weaknesses. Moreover, it indicates that the validation logic is not up-to-date, and can indicate that other, more subtle validation errors are present.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-694
CWE-1173
CWE-20

 

Consequences

Integrity: Unexpected State

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

The DTD or schema validation will not catch the duplicate occurrence of the same form name. To find the issue in the implementation, manual checks or automated static analysis could be applied to the xml configuration files.

CVE References

CWE-1007 – Insufficient Visual Distinction of Homoglyphs Presented to User

Read Time:1 Minute, 28 Second

Description

The software displays information or identifiers to a user, but the display mechanism does not make it easy for the user to distinguish between visually similar or identical glyphs (homoglyphs), which may cause the user to misinterpret a glyph and perform an unintended, insecure action.

Modes of Introduction:

– Architecture and Design

 

Likelihood of Exploit: Medium

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-451

 

Consequences

Integrity, Confidentiality: Other

An attacker may ultimately redirect a user to a malicious website, by deceiving the user into believing the URL they are accessing is a trusted domain. However, the attack can also be used to forge log entries by using homoglyphs in usernames. Homoglyph manipulations are often the first step towards executing advanced attacks such as stealing a user’s credentials, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), or log forgery. If an attacker redirects a user to a malicious site, the attacker can mimic a trusted domain to steal account credentials and perform actions on behalf of the user, without the user’s knowledge. Similarly, an attacker could create a username for a website that contains homoglyph characters, making it difficult for an admin to review logs and determine which users performed which actions.

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

CVE References

  • CVE-2013-7236
    • web forum allows impersonation of users with homoglyphs in account names
  • CVE-2012-0584
    • Improper character restriction in URLs in web browser
  • CVE-2009-0652
    • Incomplete denylist does not include homoglyphs of “/” and “?” characters in URLs
  • CVE-2017-5015
    • web browser does not convert hyphens to punycode, allowing IDN spoofing in URLs
  • CVE-2005-0233
    • homoglyph spoofing using punycode in URLs and certificates
  • CVE-2005-0234
    • homoglyph spoofing using punycode in URLs and certificates
  • CVE-2005-0235
    • homoglyph spoofing using punycode in URLs and certificates

CWE-1004 – Sensitive Cookie Without ‘HttpOnly’ Flag

Read Time:2 Minute, 6 Second

Description

The software uses a cookie to store sensitive information, but the cookie is not marked with the HttpOnly flag.

The HttpOnly flag directs compatible browsers to prevent client-side script from accessing cookies. Including the HttpOnly flag in the Set-Cookie HTTP response header helps mitigate the risk associated with Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where an attacker’s script code might attempt to read the contents of a cookie and exfiltrate information obtained. When set, browsers that support the flag will not reveal the contents of the cookie to a third party via client-side script executed via XSS.

An HTTP cookie is a small piece of data attributed to a specific website and stored on the user’s computer by the user’s web browser. This data can be leveraged for a variety of purposes including saving information entered into form fields, recording user activity, and for authentication purposes. Cookies used to save or record information generated by the user are accessed and modified by script code embedded in a web page. While cookies used for authentication are created by the website’s server and sent to the user to be attached to future requests. These authentication cookies are often not meant to be accessed by the web page sent to the user, and are instead just supposed to be attached to future requests to verify authentication details.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

Likelihood of Exploit: Medium

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-732

 

Consequences

Confidentiality: Read Application Data

If the HttpOnly flag is not set, then sensitive information stored in the cookie may be exposed to unintended parties.

Integrity: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

If the cookie in question is an authentication cookie, then not setting the HttpOnly flag may allow an adversary to steal authentication data (e.g., a session ID) and assume the identity of the user.

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Effectiveness: High

Description: 

Leverage the HttpOnly flag when setting a sensitive cookie in a response.

While this mitigation is effective for protecting cookies from a browser’s own scripting engine, third-party components or plugins may have their own engines that allow access to cookies. Attackers might also be able to use XMLHTTPResponse to read the headers directly and obtain the cookie.

CVE References

  • CVE-2014-3852
    • CMS written in Python does not include the HTTPOnly flag in a Set-Cookie header, allowing remote attackers to obtain potentially sensitive information via script access to this cookie.
  • CVE-2015-4138
    • Appliance for managing encrypted communications does not use HttpOnly flag.

USN-5448-1: ncurses vulnerabilities

Read Time:1 Minute, 5 Second

It was discovered that ncurses was not properly checking array bounds
when executing the fmt_entry function, which could result in an
out-of-bounds write. An attacker could possibly use this issue to
execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-10684)

It was discovered that ncurses was not properly checking user input,
which could result in it being treated as a format argument. An
attacker could possibly use this issue to expose sensitive
information or to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-10685)

It was discovered that ncurses was incorrectly performing memory
management operations and was not blocking access attempts to
illegal memory locations. An attacker could possibly use this issue
to cause a denial of service. (CVE-2017-11112, CVE-2017-13729,
CVE-2017-13730, CVE-2017-13731, CVE-2017-13732, CVE-2017-13733,
CVE-2017-13734)

It was discovered that ncurses was not properly performing checks
on pointer values before attempting to access the related memory
locations, which could lead to NULL pointer dereferencing. An
attacker could possibly use this issue to cause a denial of service.
(CVE-2017-11113)

It was discovered that ncurses was incorrectly handling loops in
libtic, which could lead to the execution of an infinite loop. An
attacker could possibly use this issue to cause a denial of service.
(CVE-2017-13728)

Read More

CVE-2021-4232

Read Time:16 Second

A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Zoo Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file admin/manage-ticket.php. The manipulation with the input <script>alert(1)</script> leads to cross site scripting. It is possible to launch the attack remotely.

Read More

CVE-2021-33016

Read Time:10 Second

An attacker can gain full access (read/write/delete) to sensitive folders due to hard-coded credentials on KUKA KR C4 control software for versions prior to 8.7 or any product running KSS.

Read More

CVE-2021-33014

Read Time:9 Second

An attacker can gain VxWorks Shell after login due to hard-coded credentials on a KUKA KR C4 control software for versions prior to 8.7 or any product running KSS.

Read More

[R1] Nessus Version 8.15.5 Fixes Multiple Third-Party Vulnerabilities

Read Time:28 Second

[R1] Nessus Version 8.15.5 Fixes Multiple Third-Party Vulnerabilities
Arnie Cabral
Thu, 05/26/2022 – 12:45

Nessus leverages third-party software to help provide underlying functionality. One of the third-party components (expat) was found to contain vulnerabilities, and an updated version has been made available by the provider.

Out of caution and in line with good practice, Tenable has opted to upgrade the expat component to address the potential impact of the issue. Nessus 8.15.5 updates expat to version 2.4.8 to address the identified vulnerabilities.

Read More

Twitter Crypto Scams: Bored Ape Yacht Club, Azuki and Other Projects Impersonated to Steal NFTs, Digital Currencies

Read Time:8 Minute, 30 Second

Scammers are using verified and unverified accounts to impersonate notable NFT projects like Bored Ape Yacht Club and others, tagging Twitter users to drive them to phishing websites.

Background

Over the last few months, a variety of non-fungible token (NFT) projects including Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), Azukis, MoonBirds and OkayBears have been impersonated on Twitter in order to steal users’ NFTs and digital currencies like Ethereum and other altcoins. To create hype, many of these projects have been promoting upcoming integrations with their own metaverses, giving scammers ample opportunity to capitalize on new or rumored announcements in association with these projects.

Cryptocurrency scams on Twitter, which have been prevalent since at least 2018, have persisted on the platform through bull and bear markets. If there is one thing that is certain about cryptocurrency scams it is that scammers are determined to find creative ways to capitalize on the fervor in cryptocurrency and maliciously profit from it.

Scammers leverage Twitter mentions to capture attention

Recently, Twitter users with an interest in NFTs and cryptocurrency are likely to have received notifications in their Twitter Mentions. The cryptocurrency scammers are tagging users in replies across hundreds of tweets. By mentioning these Twitter usernames, they’re trying to pique their curiosity in a bid to trick some users into falling for their scams.

Image Source: Tenable, March 2022

Airdrops and free NFTs are the perfect vehicle for cryptocurrency scams

BAYC, one of the blue chip NFT projects in the space that has seen exponential growth since its launch in April 2021, announced earlier this year an Airdrop of ApeCoin to holders of its various NFT projects such as BAYC, Mutant Ape Yacht Club and Bored Ape Kennel Club. Naturally, scammers saw this announcement as a ripe opportunity to target the interest in this upcoming airdrop and began creating campaigns by hijacking verified Twitter accounts to drive users to phishing sites.

Image Source: Tenable, March 2022

These hijacked verified accounts were pivoted to use profile pictures (PFPs) of BAYC NFTs to lend legitimacy to their claims of airdrops of $APE tokens. Additionally, the scammers used these verified accounts to mention users en masse to capture their attention.

Image Source: Tenable, March 2022

Other noteworthy NFT projects impersonated

Besides BAYC, scammers have been impersonating a variety of other notable NFT projects including Azukis, Moonbirds, Invisible Friends and emerging projects on the Solana blockchain like OkayBears.

Backlash of BAYC’s Otherside Metaverse launch leveraged by scammers

On April 30, Yuga Labs launched its Otherside metaverse project, a way for BAYC NFT holders to purchase deeds (“Otherdeeds”) of land in their metaverse. This launch overwhelmed the Ethereum network, resulting in high gas fees for enthusiasts trying to mint a piece of land in the metaverse. This led to significant backlash from some of the project’s most vocal supporters. To capitalize on the frustration felt by these enthusiasts, scammers quickly moved to create fake OthersideMeta accounts on Twitter, promoting phishing pages not just for minting Otherdeeds, but also pages for those wanting to get a refund of the excessive gas fees they paid attempting to acquire the Otherdeeds.

Image Source: Tenable, May 2022

Scammers ironically warn of scammers, use fake accounts to add legitimacy to tweets

Conveniently, scammers will use the threat of potential scammers as justification for why they “clean” or “close” comments or replies to their tweets.

Image Source: Tenable, April 2022

They then leverage fake accounts that respond to the tweet to make it appear legitimate. Once they’ve seeded a few of these fake tweets, they leverage a built-in Twitter feature for conversations to restrict who can respond to their tweets, which prevents users from warning others of the potential fraud that lies ahead.

Image Source: Tenable, April 2022

Phishing sites are indistinguishable from the legitimate NFT project sites

The scammers leverage assets from the legitimate NFT project sites in order to craft their phishing sites, which would make it difficult for the average cryptocurrency enthusiast to tell them apart.

Image Source: Tenable, May 2022

The scammers will also use popular services like Linktree to drive users to fake pages mimicking NFT marketplaces like OpenSea and Magic Eden.

Image Source: Tenable, May 2022

Connecting your wallet to untrusted sites is a dangerous prospect

These phishing sites don’t rely on stealing users’ traditional usernames and passwords. Instead, they seek to convince users to connect their cryptocurrency wallets, typically browser-based wallets such as MetaMask or Phantom (Solana) to the phishing sites. Unsuspecting users explicitly need to grant these phishing sites permission to access their wallets. By doing so, scammers are able to then transfer out the digital currencies like Ethereum ($ETH) or Solana ($SOL), as well as any NFTs being held in these wallets.

These NFT-based scams are extremely successful

A fellow researcher who goes by the pseudonym Zachxbt recently noted that the BAYC Otherside phishing sites were so successful that they were able to locate three cryptocurrency addresses that had stolen several NFTs from Mutant Ape Yacht Club (MAYC), BAYC, Azuki and others to the tune of $6.2 million dollars.

1/ As we all anticipated Otherside phishing sites would appear

Today 0xb87 stole $1.03m (369 ETH) worth of NFTs. Most notably 4 MAYC, 1 BAYC, & 30+ SandboxNFT

This lead to 0xa8 & 0x5d which have $5.1m worth of stolen NFTs! 4 BAYC, 19 Azuki, 2 MAYC, 2 WOW & more

$6.2m in total! pic.twitter.com/FbzxoXWEC8

— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) May 1, 2022

The NFT scammers Twitter playbook

The projects impersonated here are just the few examples I’ve encountered over the last few months. However, future NFT projects or announcements from existing projects that have yet to launch or have launched recently will likely be capitalized by scammers following the same playbook:

Hack or purchase a verified Twitter account or an account with hundreds of thousands of followers
Pivot the account to impersonate notable NFT projects or their members by using PFPs and other images from the project
Tweet about upcoming or recently held airdrops or mints for the projects with links pointing to phishing websites
Tag users directly from the impersonated account or utilize an army of fake accounts to tag users across hundreds of tweets
Wait for users to click on the phishing links and grant access to their cryptocurrency wallets in order to begin stealing NFTs and digital currencies

There may be some slight variations to the steps above, such as compromising the Twitter account of an existing figure within the cryptocurrency space, but chances are they will continue to use the same approach until something disrupts the playbook.

Twitter account for digital artist Beeple was hacked to promote a phishing scam
Image Source: xBenJamminx (Twitter)

How Twitter could curtail many of these NFT cryptocurrency scams

There are a few ways Twitter could intervene to make things harder for scammers when it comes to these impersonations.

Make the NFT profile pictures feature available to all users instead of just to paying members of Twitter Blue. Because blockchains are meant to help provide a way to verify trust, allowing everyone to utilize this feature will provide a mechanism by which users can verify the authenticity of the tweets from someone using a BAYC profile picture.
Temporarily hide tweets and profiles for verified accounts that change their profile pictures and names. Scammers that successfully hijack verified Twitter accounts will pivot them to brands, notable individuals or NFT projects. By temporarily hiding these tweets and profiles when they make such a change to their profiles, Twitter would give its abuse team a chance to manually review these changes before the scammers wreak havoc.
Create warnings for profiles and links shared by verified Twitter accounts that recently changed their names and profile pictures. If #2 is not feasible, then put up a roadblock that creates warnings for end users when they are tagged in tweets from newly updated verified profiles or in the links that have been shared. Use transparency to help inform end users. Since Twitter accounts are tagged by a user_id, add a warning bubble next to a tweet saying “This profile recently changed its name and profile photo from (x) to (y). If this profile seems suspicious, report the account.”
Watch for signals such as mass tagging on tweets. To gather the attention of users, the scammers are relying on tagging many users in replies to tweets. If a tweet begins to receive replies that are tagging multiple users, flag the original tweet/account and subsequent replies as suspicious. Twitter “canoes” – as they were once referred to – are anomalous, so such replies, even if from a number of Twitter accounts not related to the original tweet, should be another potential signal for flagging.

Twitter users interested in cryptocurrency need to remain skeptical

It’s a common refrain from me, but operating from a place of skepticism is likely going to provide some cover for users when it comes to such scams. If you’re proactively tagged in a tweet, you should be highly suspicious of the motivations behind it, even if it comes from a verified Twitter account. Seek out the original project’s website and cross-reference links that you see being shared on Twitter with the ones on their official website. Scammers will also rely on urgency to try to add pressure to users in this space. If an NFT mint is happening, they’ll say that there are a limited number of spots left. This urgency makes it easier to take advantage of users not wanting to miss out on the opportunity.

Much of the advice here is temporarily valuable because ultimately, scammers in this space are crafty and will continue to innovate their way into your MetaMask or other cryptocurrency wallets, which is why the oldest but most salient idiom remains valid: if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Additional Resources

Elon Musk and SNL: Scammers Steal Over $10 Million in Fake Bitcoin, Ethereum and Dogecoin Crypto Giveaways
Cryptocurrency Scams: Fake Giveaways Impersonate Followers of Political and Other Notable Figures
Fake Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dogecoin, Cardano, Ripple and Shiba Inu Giveaways Proliferate on YouTube Live

Read More

News, Advisories and much more

Exit mobile version