Saturday, July 13, 2024
EHA

‘Amnesia:33’ TCP/IP Flaws Affect Millions of IoT Devices

Forescout Research Labs has launched Project Memoria, an initiative that aims at providing the community with the most important study on the security of TCP/IP stacks. AMNESIA:33 is the first research published under Project Memoria.

AMNESIA:33

AMNESIA:33” is a set of 33 vulnerabilities that impact four open-source TCP/IP protocol stacks that are used by major IoT, OT, and IT machine vendors.

It affects multiple open source TCP/IP stacks that are not owned by a single company. This implies that a single vulnerability is likely to spread easily and silently across multiple codebases, development teams, companies, and products, which presents significant challenges to patch management.

Researchers estimated quite 150 vendors and millions of devices are susceptible to AMNESIA:33

The security flaw in TCP/IP stack

The TCP/IP stacks affected by AMNESIA:33 are often found in operating systems for embedded devices, systems-on-a-chip, networking equipment, OT devices, and a myriad of enterprise and consumer IoT devices.

A security flaw in a TCP/IP stack can be extremely dangerous because the code in these components may be used to process every incoming network packet that reaches a device.

Many of the vulnerabilities reported within AMNESIA:33 arise from bad software development practices, such as an absence of basic input validation. Mostly corruption in memory can cause a denial of service, information leaks, or remote code execution.

AMNESIA:33 – Forescout

Three of the most severe issues reside in uIP (CVE-2020-24336), picoTCP (CVE-2020-24338), and Nut/Net (CVE-2020-25111), all of which are remote code execution (RCE) flaws and have a CVSS score of 9.8 out of a maximum of 10.

  • CVE-2020-24336 – The code for parsing DNS records in DNS response packets sent over NAT64 does not validate the length field of the response records, allowing attackers to corrupt memory.
  • CVE-2020-24338 – The function that parses domain names lacks bounds checks, allowing attackers to corrupt memory with crafted DNS packets.
  • CVE-2020-25111 – A heap buffer overflow occurring during the processing of the name field of a DNS response resource record, allowing an attacker to corrupt adjacent memory by writing an arbitrary number of bytes to an allocated buffer.

Exploitability

Exploitability is influenced heavily by the following factors:

Stack configuration–  TCP/IP stacks are highly configurable, allows enabling and disabling various sub stacks, specifying buffer sizes, selecting different kinds of memory allocators, regulating interaction with network drivers, and handling debugging functionality.

During the research, some bounds checks were implemented as part of assertion predicates, which are often turned off in production, so the exploitability of some issues depends on the assertion configuration.

Networking Hardware & Driver–  TCP/IP stacks often can be configured to offload packet validation and filtering, and certain network controllers do so autonomously regardless of stack configuration.

Depending on the nature of a vulnerability, this can influence whether a malicious packet ever gets to reach the code it seeks to exploit.

Target Platform- The exploitability of an issue is highly dependent on the target’s hardware architecture and configuration. For example, CVE2018-16524 affects the FreeRTOS+TCP stack by allowing an attacker to provide an MSS value of 0 and cause a division-by-zero, which can lead to a DoS.

Mitigation Actions

  • Disable or block IPv6 traffic whenever it is not needed in the network
  • Configure devices to rely on internal DNS servers as much as possible and closely monitor external DNS traffic
  • Monitor all network traffic for malformed packets

These are the possible mitigating actions that asset owners and security operators can take to protect their networks from the TCP/IP vulnerabilities in AMNESIA:33.

You can follow us on LinkedinTwitterFacebook for daily Cybersecurity and hacking news updates.

Website

Latest articles

mSpy Data Breach: Millions of Customers’ Data Exposed

mSpy, a widely used phone spyware application, has suffered a significant data breach, exposing...

Advance Auto Parts Cyber Attack: Over 2 Million Users Data Exposed

RALEIGH, NC—Advance Stores Company, Incorporated, a prominent commercial entity in the automotive industry, has...

Hackers Using ClickFix Social Engineering Tactics to Deploy Malware

Cybersecurity researchers at McAfee Labs have uncovered a sophisticated new method of malware delivery,...

Coyote Banking Trojan Attacking Windows Users To Steal Login Details

Hackers use Banking Trojans to steal sensitive financial information. These Trojans can also intercept...

Hackers Created 700+ Fake Domains to Sell Olympic Games Tickets

As the world eagerly anticipates the Olympic Games Paris 2024, a cybersecurity threat has...

Japanese Space Agency Spotted zero-day via Microsoft 365 Services

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has revealed details of a cybersecurity incident that...

Top 10 Active Directory Management Tools – 2024

Active Directory Management Tools are essential for IT administrators to manage and secure Active...
Guru baran
Guru baranhttps://gbhackers.com
Gurubaran is a co-founder of Cyber Security News and GBHackers On Security. He has 10+ years of experience as a Security Consultant, Editor, and Analyst in cybersecurity, technology, and communications.

Free Webinar

Low Rate DDoS Attack

9 of 10 sites on the AppTrana network have faced a DDoS attack in the last 30 days.
Some DDoS attacks could readily be blocked by rate-limiting, IP reputation checks and other basic mitigation methods.
More than 50% of the DDoS attacks are employing botnets to send slow DDoS attacks where millions of IPs are being employed to send one or two requests per minute..
Key takeaways include:

  • The mechanics of a low-DDoS attack
  • Fundamentals of behavioural AI and rate-limiting
  • Surgical mitigation actions to minimize false positives
  • Role of managed services in DDoS monitoring

Related Articles