Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 44

EDITORS NOTE

Dear Readers,

01/2011 (01)

TEAM
Editor: Sebastian Bula sebastian.bula@software.com.pl Proofreaders: Jonathan Edwards, Michael Munt, Edward Werzyn Jr., David Small Betatesters: Stefan Castille, Michael Munt, Juan Bidini, John J Trinckes, Jr., Kyle Kennedy, David Small, Massimo Buso, Davide Quarta, Santosh Kumar Rana Senior Consultant/Publisher: Pawe Marciniak CEO: Ewa Dudzic ewa.dudzic@software.com.pl Art Director: Ireneusz Pogroszewski ireneusz.pogroszewski@software.com.pl DTP: Ireneusz Pogroszewski Production Director: Andrzej Kuca andrzej.kuca@software.com.pl Marketing Director: Sebastian Bula sebastian.bula@software.com.pl Publisher: Software Press Sp. z o.o. SK 02-682 Warszawa, ul. Bokserska 1 Phone: 1 917 338 3631 www.hakin9.org/en Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the high quality of the magazine, the editors make no warranty, express or implied, concerning the results of content usage. All trade marks presented in the magazine were used only for informative purposes. All rights to trade marks presented in the magazine are reserved by the companies which own them. To create graphs and diagrams we used program by

As one of our authors implied, penetration testing is an industry; an industry with its own rights, established concepts and ideas. Thankfully, its growing popularity should not be measured only by the amount of pen testing quacks and con artists taking it over (although the very idea that it already needs fixing can act as a measurement of popularity in itself), but also by the feedback the readers of PenTest Magazine zero issue gave us. We published the teaser with the modest idea that the fast-expanding penetration testing field deserves its own magazine. Now, judging by the comments that we got and the material our authors provided, we are absolutely sure of it. However, creating a penetration testing magazine proved to be quite tricky. How do we make sure that the reader gets the right impression of the kind of hacking we promote? There were some great authors who submitted splendid articles sharing their hacking pen testing! solutions, which we all worked on hard to improve in terms of terminology and the message, or, in some extreme cases, could not accept at all. The trick mentioned before is that the idea behind PenTest Magazine was to stay clear of any questionable aspects of hacking: it is not our intention to teach how to hack for any reasons different from genuine, professional penetration testing. I believe thanks to our great beta testers and proofreaders that we are at least heading in the right direction. Thus, the first issue of PenTest Magazine focuses on standards and, hopefully, will provoke more discussion about the basic and ideological concepts of pen testing. It features Fixing the Industry, which you might already know from the zero issue, improved by some commentary by the readers. David Small will tackle a seemingly trivial question of what drives or at least should drive pen testers to be pen testers, and it really should not be viewed as preaching about ideals. Finally, Bill Mathews will help you write a good penetration test report, which seems to be an indispensable part of every pen test if you want to be regarded as a professional in the field. Enjoy your reading and dont forget to submit your comments on the subject brought up. Enjoy your reading Sebastian Bua & Penetration Test Magazine Team

Mathematical formulas created by Design Science MathType

DISCLAIMER!

The techniques described in our articles may only be used in private, local networks. The editors hold no responsibility for misuse of the presented techniques or consequent data loss.

01/2011 (1) May

Page 2

http://pentestmag.com

CONTENTS

POINT OF VIEW
04 Why We Do It
by David Small

WEB APPLICATION SECURITY


28 Heuristic Methods vs Automated Scanners
by Hans-Michael Varbaek
As most penetration testers know, a manual check of a Web Application can be much more thorough than a completely automated one. Combining a few assistant tools like a transparent proxy, and perhaps a scanner that may find overlooked parts, is a good way to conduct e.g. an assessment of actual vulnerabilities. The manual methodology however, differs a lot from one ethical hacker to another, and in many cases only very basic (common) ways of approach are used.

STANDARDS

06 Fixing the Industry

by Iftach Ian Amit and Chris Nickerson


Penetration testing has been a skill (some say an art) for as long as we can remember information security and the computer industry. Nevertheless, over the past decade or so, the term has been completely ambiguated. It has been cannibalized, commercialized, and transformed into a market where charlatans and professionals are on the same playing field.

12 Building a Better Penetration Test Report


by Bill Mathews

HOW-TO
by Bill Mathews

Recently Ive had the, ahem, pleasure of reading and reviewing a number of penetration test reports from various internal and third-party resources. For fear of getting someone into a good deal of trouble my source shall rename nameless. My first thought was wow, this is a wild and varied industry we are in. My second thought was, how is this stuff useful to someone trying to fix the issues found? In the majority of the reports it wasnt obvious what the problem even was, let alone what one would do to fix it. This is a pretty well known problem in the infosec industry as a whole, we tend to overtalk the problem.

34 Operationalizing Penetration Testing Results Using Network Monitoring Software All For Free
Penetration Testing these days is often done on a oneoff basis, meaning companies do them once a month, once a quarter or once a year and then never think about them again. I find that to be a shame and think that penetration testing can be an invaluable tool in vulnerability management when performed properly.

TOOLS

36 Pulling Shellcode From Network Stream


by Salahudin Wan Khairuzzaman
Metasploit framework provides ready to run shellcode modules that can be compiled easily. Earlier days of exploitation with shellcode required lots of coding and programming efforts. Metasploit has simplified this in their framework. In this article, we will use several security tools to pull the shellcode from network stream and analyze the output.

BLACK BOX
by Adrian Furtuna

18 How Fuzzy Are You Today? A Guide to Client-Side Fuzzing Using Peach
What do you do if your targets are fully patched and you do not find any configuration issues during a penetration test? Do you take the blue pill and tell the client hes safe (and everybodys happy) or do you take the red pill and go deep into the rabbit hole to find those hidden bugs? Lets take the red pill and see what happens...

INTERVIEW

40 Interview with Gary McGraw


by PenTest Magazine Team
Gary McGraw from Cigital about his views on software security and the Building Security In Maturity Model.

NETWORK SECURITY
24 Dueling Apache Tomcat
by Jovon Itwaru
Setting up a JSP-enabled web server is cumbersome and complex. Apache Tomcat aims to solve this dilemma by providing a quick, easy, and cost-effective solution for developers to deploy their applications and services. While this is great for functionality, its default configuration can greatly decrease the security of a network. In this article, we will explore these vulnerabilities and how penetration testers can use them to their advantage.

01/2011 (1) May

Page 3

http://pentestmag.com

POINT OF VIEW

Pen Testing: Why We Do It


Were penetration testers. What do we do? Why do we do it? What does it say about us?

here are some misconceptions about pentesters. From a shallow look, they appear to be people who break into computer systems, with tools designed to do just that. But this isnt the case; allow me to explain. The Internet is full of people who try to break into computers connected to it. This happens all the time. A computers defenses are generally up to one or two people; thats us. We do tedious things. We keep track of the OS and current software, and patch everything as soon as patches are issued. We read system logs. We check permissions. We leave honey-traps. We look for things that smell wrong. It takes discipline on our end to do all of these things. Because we do this, its not easy, and its not quick, to crack into the machines were trying to protect. And one of the things we do is to test our security. Its no different than you giving your doorknob a shake after youve locked it, to make sure it wont turn, and that the bolt is engaged and wont open with a simple push. For most people thats a habit they dont even think about. Thats penetration testing. Now an attacker has some sort of motive to try to get in to our systems. However, its usually something simple like rooting another machine. There are so incredibly many computer systems which are simple to get into that we hope that attackers will become bored
01/2011 (1) May

and invest their energies someplace else. (This is the low-hanging-fruit principle.) But we also hope the attackers will get bored with doing something thats no challenge, and start doing something harder, namely, work on securing computers. Thats a very hard challenge. As I said, most attackers will test out a few really obvious ways into your computer, and if they dont work, theyll move on the next machine. It may tell you something that theyre called script kiddies. Would you like to do something far harder? Would you like to earn the respect of the small community of security people? Theres room for researchers, consultants, even writers for magazines. (And certainly the pay isnt bad, either.) There are few things like knowing youre one of the best. U.S. President John F. Kennedy said it very well back in 1962, when he started Project Apollo, to land on the moon by 1970: We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills

DAVID SMALL
http://pentestmag.com

Page 4

STANDARDS

Fixing the Industry


Penetration testing has been a skill (some say an art) for as long as we can remember information security and the computer industry. Nevertheless, over the past decade or so, the term has been completely ambiguated. It has been cannibalized, commercialized, and transformed into a market where charlatans and professionals are on the same playing field.

he commercial industry has embraced the Sexyness of penetration tests, built products around it uprooted its values with product marketing and sales speak, and conned organizations into buying deeper and deeper to the dreaded pentest unit (as in I need 2 units of pentest to complete this compliance effort). Backed by a thriving regulatory compliance rush to checkoff as many items as they can on audit lists, pentesting was given the final blow to its heritage of value. A once surgical skill that required innovation, critical thinking, technical savvy, business understanding, and good old hacker-sense was reduced to a check box on the back of a consulting companies marketing material. This type of market commoditization has led to the frustration of many businesses and consultants alike. With this in mind, a group of security veterans (each one

Commercializing security tools and Compliance are giving the industry a double-blow
with at least a decade under their belts, and numerous successful penetration tests in various industries) have gotten together to discuss the state of the industry, and a common gripe was echoed. Many of the venting sessions from professionals around the world centered around the wide array of testing quality within penetration tests. This huge gap was often boiled down to the Scanner/ Tool Tests and the Real Testing arguments. Another common theme for these sessions was the decided
01/2011 (1) May

lack of value presented by the Scanner type of testing and some brainstorming of how that could be resolved worldwide. This issue was not localized or specific to any vertical but it was something that InfoSec professionals from all around the globe were experiencing. From these sessions happening at EVERY security conference thrown an idea was born. The idea to finally standardize and define what a penetration test really is. This would help the testers increase the quality and repeatability of the testing while also giving the organizations doing the testing, a reference list of what is to be done during the test. This is where the Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES) started. After a couple of months of working behind the scenes, a group of about a dozen security practitioners from different parts of the industry put forth a basic mind map of how they did penetration tests. Later on, that blended map was released to a larger group of InfoSec professionals. This group tore apart the original map and streamlined it to fit a larger and wider audience. At that point a final rendition of the mindmap was constructed between 25+ International InfoSec Professionals. With over 1800 revisions to the Alpha mindmap, the team then opened up the stage for more massive collaboration and started building one of the more exciting concepts in the security industry. Currently the Penetration Testing Execution Standard is backed by dozens of volunteers from all around the world, working in teams on writing the finer details of what will be the golden
http://pentestmag.com

Page 6

standard for penetration testing for organizations as small as a 15 people company, and as large as a government agency or a nations critical infrastructure. The standard spans seven sections that define the content of a penetration test. These sections cover everything from how to formalize the engagement legally and commercially, up to what areas the final report should cover. Following is an overview of the seven sections and what they reflect in terms of how a penetration test should be conducted.

Pre-Engagement interaction

In this section the standard defines some basic rules of engagement, scoping, points of contact, and most importantly goals for the engagement. It is often neglected and overlooked (as in our previous example of two pentest units that are usually followed by a website or an IP address to be tested), and one of the main reasons for organizations not getting any value out of such testing. The section goes on to define what are the allowed resources that the tester can utilize in the business, and the tester is given an opportunity to gain a better understanding of what is the business aspect that is being scrutinized, and what are the real goals of the test (which are NEVER a server, an application, or even a network). In addition to the goal/ value oriented approach of the tester, the organizations receiving the test (customer) will also be able to reference this section. The customer will be able to set guidelines for the test, understand the safeguards put in place and have a full understanding of the communication pathways that will be open throughout the test. Often times, customers do not have the appropriate channel of communication with the testing group and it causes confusion in the testing process. We aim to make the goals and tests performed clear to both sides well before the testing begins.

perceived by an investigative attacker. A lot of information is being spilled out through unauthorized (and seemingly legitimate) channels, social media, and just plain old bad policies. It is crucial for the tested organization to see exactly what information is available out there in order to either prepare for such information being used against them or fix any policy/training gaps that it may have in relation to information disclosure. Until this exercise is performed, most companies do not understand the gravity of the information that can be collected about them. For example: If a tester can identify that the customer is using an unpatched version of Acrobat (found through the analysis of metadata within a published document), they are a prime candidate for a client side/malicious file attachment attach. Also, if there are sensitive documents published on corporate directed locations, it may pose an even bigger risk (i.e. VPN Login instructions on a public webserver; Yeswe ran into these many times in the past). The information and intelligence gathering phase aims to gather as much information as possible about the target and fully explore the increased threat surface to attack. The standard covers digital collection through open source intelligence resources as well as paid for resources, physical on-site collection and observation, and human intelligence collection. After all, the more a tester has to attack the more comprehensive the results will be. This is the most aggressive approach available but will not be required for all strengths of tests. Its important to note that the standard will also define levels or strength of operations within each section which would allow small engagements to employ the more standard OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) methods, and larger scale or higher level/strength engagements to include the more elaborate on-site, physical and HUMINT (Human Intelligence) elements.

Information and Intelligence Gathering

In this section the standard really kicks in. This is where we were receiving the most comments in the lines of this is too expensive, we dont know how to do this, and this is not really necessary. From our collective experience (at least the founding team) we can clearly state that when this phase is done right, we can already know the outcome of the pentest. During the intelligence-gathering phase, the tester aims to build a comprehensive as possible picture of the target organization. Everything from corporate information, the vertical in which the organization is operating in, business processes that are crucial to the business, financial information and all the way up to mapping out specific personnel, their online social presence and how to use all of that information in a way that an attacker would use. On the other hand, the organization being tested will finally get a clear overview of how it is being
01/2011 (1) May

Threat Modeling

The threat-modeling section provides the tester and the organization with clear documentation of the relevant threat communities as well as the assets and their values. The threat modeling is performed around two central lines the attacker, and the business assets. From an attacker perspective, all the relevant threat communities are identified, researched, documented, and their capabilities are fully analyzed and documented. From a business asset perspective, all the critical business assets (physical, logical, process, 3rd party, intellectual, etc.) are identified. During the documentation phase of these assets, every relevant supporting technology system is mapped, along with the relevant personnel, interaction, processing, and the information lifecycle. The main output from this phase is a well-documented threat model that takes into account the data gathered
http://pentestmag.com

Page 7

STANDARDS
and analyzed at the intelligence gathering phase, and can be used to create attack trees and map out venues for vulnerability analysis of key processes and technologies. This is another key component to providing value in Penetration Testing. If the customer does not know what the threat is to the business or the actual risk, why should they resolve the issue. Threat Modeling provides a weighting system so that testers can rely less on a screenshot of a shell and more on the overall value to the business. intelligence, threat modeling and vulnerability analysis in place; this phase becomes much more focused and more importantly much more fine-tuned to the organization being tested. In a proper penetration test, we should not just see spread-spectrum scans and exploitation attempts on every conceivable technology from a tool or two, but also (and again much more importantly) a dedicated attack path that lends from the true assets that the organization holds and the specific vulnerabilities (either technology related or human/process related). This type of validation is a process that is often lost in the throw all the attacks we have at it type automation. Here, the standard aims to act on the vulnerabilities identified and confirm or refute their existence. Many testers and testing tools, due to lack of actionable intelligence or poor planning, will run exploits against hosts that do not have the exploitable package running or even installed. This causes undue increased traffic and potential risk to the business environment.

Vulnerability Analysis

Only at this stage we run into what more traditional penetration tests actually include in their scope. As we can clearly see, the new penetration testing execution standard provides a much more thorough background both from a business understanding, as well as from a technical perspective to the test. Leveraging this extensive research, the vulnerability analysis phase (which can sometimes be considered as a technology centric threat modeling) defines the extensive coverage of mapping out and documenting any vulnerability in processes, physical infrastructure, and of course technology related elements. This phase does include some interaction with the organization, as the testers probe for services and equipment, confirm assumptions made at the threat modeling and intelligence gathering phases, and fingerprint the underlying software being deployed. One of the deliverables from this phase (on top of the actual vulnerability mapping and assertion) is attack trees that correspond to the entire process thus far. This by itself can provide a lot of value to the organization as a living document that can be updated with relevant threats, vulnerabilities and exposure that is used as one of the parameters for the ongoing risk management practice. Mind you, this is not just running a scan or port mapping. This is a comprehensive process to analyze the data collected for attack routes as well as identify venues for attacks. The tester will leverage conventional and unconventional ways to identify vulnerabilities from missing patches, open services, misconfigurations, default passwords, Intellectual Property leakage, increased threat through information (leaked passwords/ docs), and much more. This hybrid approach allows the testers to collect actionable information and rank the ease of attacks. Once the tester has analyzed the potential vulnerabilities present, they will have a clear picture of what/why/how/where and when to execute attacks to confirm the validity of that vulnerability.

Post-Exploitation

At this point most pentests conclude the engagement and provide a report that includes every finding with some sort of traffic light rating (low, medium, high...) that is pre-baked into the reporting tool. However, real world attacks would not suffice in getting a foothold inside the organization, and would try to leverage it further either trying to obtain additional information/resources, or to actually find a way to exfiltrate the information/control outside of the organization. The exfiltration and access to the data types or control systems will fit directly into the threat modeling conducted earlier in the process. The tester will be able to show the real company impact of certain attacks and why they are relevant to the company (i.e. there is a big difference in showing an executive a screenshot of a shell than showing them the interface THEY use to change the General Ledger within the ERP system. This type of focus provides an instant impact and is formatted in the language that makes sense to the business). The post-exploitation phase defines the scope of such additional tasks, that provide the organization with a way to see how would it really stand up to such an attack, and whether it would be able to identify related data breaches and leaks. Conducting this focused attack on resources paints a very clear and concise picture of the threats capability and its possible effects on the business as a whole.

Exploitation

Reporting

The exploitation section is very close to the common scope of penetration tests these days. It includes the actual attack execution against the organization. With all the proper
01/2011 (1) May

Finally this trip through an attackers modus-operandi needs to be concluded with a clear and useful report, for the organization to actually see value from such an engagement. The value is not limited to documenting
http://pentestmag.com

Page 8

the technical gaps that need to be addressed, but also an additional value to the customer as they are allowed needs to provide a more executive-level report that to test the effectiveness of their defensive monitoring reflects the organizations exposure to loss in business systems and/or outsources solutions. terms (financial). This would include the actual meaning At the end of the day, the forces of the industry will of which assets are at the highest risk, how much dictate what a penetration test will look like and what resources are used to protect different assets, and a would it contain. Nevertheless, the PTES is aimed to recommendation on how to more efficiently close any provide the industry with a baseline it clearly lacks now. gaps in exposure by spending resources on controls The term has been mutated over many iterations and and protections more intelligently. it has been given a very narrow freedom to operate Such a recommendation would not have been possible between the minimum that has been dictated by without the surrounding activities that provide the business regulatory requirements (which did good and actually relevance of the exercise and the tested business forced more businesses to test themselves), and the elements. This is also where the organization would glass ceiling that has been created de-facto by the end up finding the most value out of the engagement, hordes of pentesters that know nothing better than as opposed to most common pentests which leave it using some product to push out a report to the customer with a laundry-list of exploits and vulnerabilities, without and move on to the next. By clearly defining the term their actual relevance or business impact. In the report, (which is used in a multitude of standards without an the tester will be required to identify the symptomatic adequate definition of what it means or consists of) vulnerabilities (like a patch missing) as well as tie out the and what the purpose, value and components of a systemic vulnerabilities a patch is missing BECAUSE Penetration Test are, PTES will increase the confidence there are gaps in policy and procedure in x/y/z area which of customers and testers alike. For quite some time allowed for the patch to not be now, organizations expect Measuring detection and incident response is an the value of conducting a installed in a timely manner or integrated part of a penetration test within the specified time) Penetration test to be not Its important to note that although there isnt a much more than a rubber stamp on the audit report or a dedicated section for detection and incident response, ticked checkbox on their compliance worksheet. PTES the organizations capabilities to identify, and react to is attempting to increase that value and blow some wind anything from the intelligence gathering, through the into the dwindling sails of what once was a critical part vulnerability analysis, exploitation and post exploitation of running a secure operations. In the modern days is also put to the test. The penetration test includes where everyone being so easily hacked by an APT isnt direct references to such capabilities in each section (as it time our testers start acting like one? Or would you well as in the reporting section), and can be extremely rather an Automated Penetration Test (APT) that you useful to clearly identify the organization maturity in pay for and does not even attempt to learn WHY they terms of risk management and handling. This provides are doing the test in the first place?

IFTACH IAN AMIT


brings over a decade of experience in the security industry, and a mixture of software development, OS, network and Web security expertise as Vice President Consulting to the top-tier security consulting firm SecurityArt. Prior to Security-Art, Ian was the Director of Security Research at Aladdin and Finjan. Ian has also held leadership roles as founder and CTO of a security startup in the IDS/IPS arena, and a director at Datavantage. Prior to Datavantage, he managed the Internet Applications as well as the UNIX departments at the security consulting firm Comsec. Ian is a frequent speaker at the leading industry conferences such as BlackHat, DefCon, Infosec, Hacker-Halted, FIRST, BruCon, SOURCE, ph-neutral, and many more.

CHRIS NICKERSON
Chris Nickerson, CEO of LARES, is just another Security guy with a whole bunch of certs whose main area of expertise is focused on Real world Attack Modeling, Red Team Testing and Infosec Testing. At Lares, Chris leads a team of security professional who conduct Risk Assessments, Penetration testing, Application Testing, Social Engineering, Red Team Testing and Full Adversarial Attack Modeling. Prior to starting Lares, Chris was Dir. of Security Services at Alternative Technology, a Sr. IT compliance at KPMG, Sr. Security Architect and Compliance Manager at Sprint Corporate Security. Chris is a member of many security groups and was also a featured member of TruTVs Tiger Team. Chris is the cohost of the Exotic liability Podcast, the author of the upcoming RED TEAM TESTING book published by Elsevier/Syngress and a founding member of BSIDES Conference.

01/2011 (1) May

Page 9

http://pentestmag.com

STANDARDS
Comment
Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES) provides a great start for information security professionals who are new to penetration testing and vulnerability analysis. As a novice one always wonders what is a good starting point and PTES definitely provides an excellent view of the landscape. Another salient feature of PTES is that it is developed by a group of professionals rather than one single organization or institution. It must have been a challenge to blend in various mindmaps and come up with a monolithic structure. It would be interesting to see if PTES go down The Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) route where the documentation is augmented with videos, tutorials and tools and receives tremendous professional support and participation. I think this is a great project and far overdue for our profession in my opinion. Security companies and consultants in the field have blurred the line between true penetration testing and vulnerability testing. Running an automatic scanner might be a starting point to identify potential vulnerabilities but it is NOT to be considered an all-inclusive penetration test. I do not feel that we will ever be able to rely on a completely automate testing solutions as they will always lack the testers experience, prone to false positives, or able to adapt varying environments that require non-standard approaches.

ABY RAO
Aby Rao CISSP, Security+, ITIL, Project+, ISO/IEC 20000 Principal, Verve Security (http://www.vervesecurity.com)

JEFF WEAVER

Sr. Network Security Engineer

Upcoming events
TakeDownCon is a brand new information security conference series, created by EC-Council. This highly technical information security conference series is very focused the theme of this first of the series is Taking Down Security, focusing on attack and defense vectors. World class experts including Barnaby Jack, Kanen Flowers, Joe McCray, Rodrigo Branco, Sean Arries, among others, will demonstrate and showcase how security systems can be taken down at ease. This 2 days conference, in a very casual and relaxed setting, is targeted towards information security researchers, engineers and technical professionals. http://www.takedowncon.com III Security Forum will take place in the Techinical Scool, in Carlos Casares, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Security experts will talk on the following: 2600 & BuenosAiresLibre.org checking your companys security Privacity in Social Networks Impossible mission? Wireless Hacking Secure Solution with *BSD http://www.eetcasares.org/ sign

Comment

Secure Ninja Expert Training & Certification Preferred Pricing Pen Test Magazine Subscribers
Pen Test Magazine has secured an agreement with Secure Ninja to offer subscribers special discounts on their expert training classes. Watch our newsletter for special promo codes granting the discount. To review the list of available courses, please visit http://secureninja.com/. Subscribe and expect more special offers in the future! If you have any comments on a subject brought up in an article you have read in a teaser, dont hesitate to submit your thoughts. Send your comments at sebastian.bula@software.com.pl (as the subject of your mail: the title of the article+commentary). Make it short (a few sentences), but informational. Add your name and the company youre representing, or your job title. The most interesting comments will be published in the magazine alongside the full articles.

Say Hello to Red Team Tesng!


Security Art's Red Team service operates on all fronts on behalf of the organizaon, evaluang all informaon security layers for possible vulnerabilies. Only Red Team tesng provides you with live feedback on the true level of your organizaonal security. Thinking creavely! Thats our approach to your test.
Security Arts Red-Team methodology consists of: 1. Informaon and intelligence gathering 2. Threat modeling 3. Vulnerability assessment 4. Exploitaon 5. Risk analysis and quanficaon of threats to monetary values 6. Reporng
Page

Ready to see actual benefits from your next security review? info@security-art.com Or call US Toll free: 1 800 300 3909 UK Toll free: 0 808 101 2722

www.security-art.com

STANDARDS

Building a Better Penetration Test Report


Do you build reports for your penetration tests? Want to make them more useful and more readable? This article is for you. Various tips are spelled out that have proven effective for the author over the years.

ecently Ive had the, ahem, pleasure of reading and reviewing a number of penetration test reports from various internal and third-party resources. For fear of getting someone into a good deal of trouble my source shall rename nameless. My first thought was wow, this is a wild and varied industry we are in. My second thought was, how is this stuff useful to someone trying to fix the issues found? In the majority of the reports it wasnt obvious what the problem even was, let alone what one would do to fix it. This is a pretty well known problem in the infosec industry as a whole, we tend to overtalk the problem. That is, and I know a number of folks who do this regularly, we simply cannot distill a problem or issue down into an actionable item. At least not in writing. We like to explain exactly how clever we are and exactly how we found an issue but how to fix it is usually the last thing on our minds. This of course isnt in all cases, but out of these reports I got to look over it was the case in most instances. I am going to attempt to outline how to build a better penetration test report and Im going to use a category then list format for easy digestion. If you dont like lists because they are overused please withhold your anger, they are overused for a reason, people like them.

and off you go. This is not or should not be further from the case. Remember whether youre a third-party tester or an internal tester, the executives pay your bills, be nice to them! The reports I reviewed basically had an executive summary that said either Your stuff is broken beyond repair or You need to pay us to come fix it for you. Neither are really good messages to send to nontechnical executives. Below are some tips for driving the point home without being insulting and without over or understating the problems. Charts and graphs can be useful and powerful tools as long as theyre properly used. The ones I like to see break down the issues by severity and then by severity and by category. This will tell the executive exactly where the discovered issues are and how bad they are. This provides a snapshot they can use to allocate resources appropriately. See useful and powerful! Provide a set of scenarios for each issue or category of issues ranging from best case to worst case as it relates to the business youre (or your client is) in. This allows them a better understanding of what the vulnerability could lead to. Save the drama and stick to something that might have a reasonable shot of happening. Someone is probably not going to leverage an XSS vulnerability on a toy makers website to set off a nuclear
http://pentestmag.com

Executive Summaries

This is often a VERY overlooked part of any report. Folks think you just include some charts and graphs
01/2011 (1) May Page 12

explosion that brings about the zombie apocalypse. I mean, it COULD happen but maybe save that one for your fiction writing class. The more realistic the better here. Provide a non-technical explanation of the vulnerability. I know this one is tough but stay with me. Executives, for the most part, arent technical people and thats no reason to be insulting to them. They have different skills, like balancing checkbooks and managing people, so, in English (or the language of your land), explain the problem, clearly. Some German physicist once said You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. He was a pretty smart guy, we should carry that quote with us when building our executive summaries or in reports in general. Try to include some criticality rankings as it relates to their industry. For instance, if the industry bestpractice is to rate an XSS hole as a high criticality say that, then explain why you may have marked it as medium if that is the case. There are mitigating circumstances in a lot of cases that may cause you to do this. It is okay to not mark everything as high especially when the vulnerability doesnt warrant it. Another example from my report reviews, every case of being able to find version information about a service was marked as a high criticality issue. It made me very sad. Ultimately your executive summary should tell what is wrong, in what places and how bad. The keep it simple principle applies here as it does to most things.

technical glory but wait! You might want to consider your audience first. Typically youre not presenting your results to security people. Typically theyre being presented to a more-technical-than-our-hypotheticalmanager-above manager. That manager will then break apart your report for distribution to the appropriate parties. Web developers, database administrators, network administrators, etc will be getting their own chunked up version of your report. This requires some forethought on your part for how you design your vulnerability reporting. Heres a list of steps I think are useful for vulnerability reporting, you should consider including these along with any specific requirements your client or company might have. Assign a unique vulnerability ID, well unique to you, your client or company. This helps with tracking the issue throughout the remediation process. It also helps so the tech folks to communicate the status of a particular issue up the chain. Something like department code-vulntype-number would work for this. So, 001-web-010 would identify a vulnerability in department code 001, it is classified as a web attack and then an identifying number. Remember to try to speak your end audiences language. Even the best web developer may not be aware of CSRF by that name so make sure you take the time to explain the issue. If she were to try to explain advanced web usability standards to you, you probably would drift off too. I know we think what we do is the most important thing in the whole galaxy (and it is) but not everyone shares that opinion. This is especially true if they have experienced a rather unenlightened security person before that tried to tell them not only was their code insecure but it lacked comments and readability. Yes, that was in one of the reports I had a chance to peruse. Try not to be THAT security person. Make each vulnerability stand on its own remembering that your report is
http://pentestmag.com

Vulnerability Reporting

This section of a report is often were the rubber meets the road so to speak. This is where you get to report your findings in all their deep,
01/2011 (1) May Page 13

STANDARDS
probably going to be distributed in chunks. If one vulnerability depends or is related to another, you should note that in a relates to section. This helps the manager to know to distribute that issue with its related issue whether it belongs to that specific group or not. Include an evidence section that is fairly detailed as to what actually happened! Screenshots, videos, packet captures and details, these are all welcome here. This is where you can be more technical to cover what the problem actually is. Again, it is not enough to just insert Suzie waz h3r3 into a database. Be as descriptive as possible. What page was the problem located at? What fields were vulnerable? What did you do to find the problem? How can it be reproduced? These are essential questions to answer in a vulnerability report. Include some industry references. Its awesome to include a CVE or OSVDB for some packaged piece of commercial software where you discover the application that hasnt been patched. You should go further. If you find a SQL Injection in a custom piece of code, point to some industry standard resources on the issue. This helps educate the folks involved with the applications and will hopefully result in more secure code being written. That is our end goal, right? rely 100% on the scan data but you use it. The question is, should you just, by default, provide the scan data with your report? This one causes a pretty heated argument in my head. On one hand I think you should just include the full tool data with your report, you used a scanner, some web application discovery tool, etc, you should provide the raw data. On the other hand I balance this with the fact that the number one complaint I hear about penetration testing reports is they dropped 60 pounds of paper on my desk and just left it there, what am I supposed to do with that? Here is what I think should be done with tool data: Dont provide the raw data by default, let the necessary parties know it is available upon request but generally providing it straight away leads to comments like the one above and a lot of confusion. You are paid to interpret the results, not the end reader of your report. The tools you use should just be that, tools that provide to-be-analyzed data, not to be used for end reports. As I said I am conflicted about this so if you are too then by all means, provide some tool data with your vulnerability reports.You just want to avoid copying and pasting the whole scan log into your report for instance. Perhaps note in a Identified by section that details how you found the particular issue. This is a great place to include some tool data as it relates specifically to that vulnerability. Maybe even include a heres how to test for this vulnerability yourself with tool x bit in there. Again, its about educating your audience. Dont be shy about saying what tool you used to find what. This show proficiency in your craft, unless of

Tool Data and Use

Everyone uses scanners, if you claim otherwise, either you are not paying attention or not being honest with yourself. You may not

course, you only used Web Killer 2020 as the only tool. That just shows a lack of attention to detail. Yet another example from my report review, EVERY vulnerability was found with AppScan. Now Im not denigrating AppScan at all (thats another article) but it should never, ever be the only tool you use in your work. No tool should be. You should develop a varied ecosystem of tools that you use in particular circumstances and dont be afraid to add new ones, after an appropriate test period of course.
01/2011 (1) May Page 14

http://pentestmag.com

Open Source tools. Do you use them? If not, you should add some to your arsenal. My philosophy is and always has been that an attacker, kiddie or otherwise, is NOT going to go out and spend $50,000 on a tool to exploit some hole, they will probably pirate it. Seriously though, they will go get some open source tool or write their own. Either way, the giant price tag tools will not help you in all these circumstances. One word of caution, dont just blindly include open source tools data into your reports (you really should never blindly do anything of course), the reason being the authors sometimes like to use colorful language you may not want your end audience to see. Generally speaking though, keep your report to the analysis of the results of all these various tools, learn to manually verify the results. This analysis is the value you provide. Its one thing to penetrate a network but if you cant explain how you did it then did you really do anything of worth? If you arent providing value then you are just a paid buttonpusher, thats not really what you want to be is it?

This applies to everyone. Once you have tested and manually verified the vulnerabilities then do some research on the issues. Did a major breach occur somewhere else because of this vulnerability? Thats something you should be reporting. XYZ leaked 10,000 credit card numbers due to a SQL Injection closely related to vulnerability XXX. Thats quite a bit more powerful than You have some SQL Injection and I can insert my name in your database. The more convincing you make your argument the less likely a client or other department is to counter with the old well its not that big a deal, well fix it later . Sadly that is a prevailing attitude and can be correct with this approach.

Remediation

Reporting from Experience

Your client or employer didnt hire you for your looks. You were hired, presumably, because you have some experience in this field so why are you not using it? Reporting from experience is quite powerful. The term Ive seen this before is the ultimate confidence builder, it is what manager live for. Being able to relate an issue or vulnerability back to past experience is a powerful way of saying Ive seen this before and heres what we should do. You should be doing that. If youre a third party tester, tell your client if youve seen the exact issue before and explain what your previous client did about it. This is a great reporting technique and relays your experience with confidence. It allows you to provide a track record of a particular remediation technique for your customers. Possibly you could even build a trust factor into your remediation solutions. This could be an article in and of itself but basically youre putting a score on your confidence a given solution will work for a particular issue. Customers and other departments will like that. If you are an internal resource without much exposure to other networks or apps or dont have a lot of experience then do some research about the vulnerability. Heres how XYZ fixed it according to Google. Okay maybe its not THAT simple but a little research and effort can go a really long way to building an effective report.
01/2011 (1) May

I have noticed both from the reports Ive reviewed and just being in the industry for a while that a vast majority of penetration testers shy away from even mentioning remediation techniques. This is a shame to me as I think testers can bring a very unique perspective to the remediation process. Im not completely sure on the reasoning behind the shyness but I can guess. At any rate I think offering some remediation advice in reports is invaluable when looking at these things from an operations perspective. A question I get quite a bit from my customers is okay Ive got this report from vendor X, how do I fix this stuff? No one is an expert in everything so while you can provide some advice be honest about where your expertise lay. Go gather some external resources to help you out where your skills might be weak, this helps build the experience I discussed earlier. On with the list. Each vulnerability should have a remediation section. It should explain some possible fixes to the issues along with well known industry best practices for fixing the issue. Stop it with simply listing links to remediation resource. While I think a resource and reference section is useful and valuable it cannot b the only remediation advice you supply. You are being paid for your advice, dont chicken out. If you have previous experience with a particular issue the note that in your report. Offer some sort of special assistance with that issue, dont just be a paper generator. Some would argue that offering remediation advice limits your objectivity. I would argue it helps you know your client better, builds your testing skills and keeps your other skills sharp. Its really a win all the way around.
http://pentestmag.com

Page 15

STANDARDS
I touched on this one before but it is worth repeating I think. Learn to speak the language of your audience. It is worth the time investment to communicate to your end audience in a way theyre accustomed to. Dont make them learn a new language to read your report. That approach leads to reports sitting on a shelf with no action taken. the report. I am a huge fanboy of cheat sheets, Im fairly convinced that if properly used they can do anything. Remember that these reports will probably be very chunked up when delivered to the various remediation teams. Provide the report in a format that is easy to break apart and can stand on its own. Provide a guide to using your report. Help files are wonderful, a tutorial on how to read the report would be great. This helps end audiences know where theyre supposed to look for things, etc. Now needing this violates the keep it simple principle but it removes any confusion. Remember what is simple to you might not be to someone else. Make sure you provide a method for your end audience to comment on your report or ask questions. A wrap up meeting or conference call is always the best way to accomplish this. You should always be able to defend and explain your work. Do not just leave a stack of paper on your customers desk. Be available to help, explain, defend, etc. You should not be a hit and run penetration tester.

Re-test

Once vulnerabilities are fixed, they should be re-tested to be sure the fixes work. We typically include it as part of an up-front engagement but however you do it make sure it gets done. This does a lot of things to reinforce your initial testing but primarily it provides a metric to show how serious a company or department is to fixing vulnerabilities. It can even be used to show how a company or department measures up to another organization or department as it relates to remediation. Not to say that people respond to competition but people respond to competition. It is just human nature. Simply running through your evidence sections in the initial vulnerability might suffice for a re-test. However, I recommend a more thorough re-testing, as an applied patch or a fix in one script might have introduced some new exploitable hole. You will want to try to find those on a good re-test. Once you have completed the re-test then you should update your report with the results of that testing. I like the change log format that shows when something was discovered and when something was resolved. If a given issue was not resolved then you can note that in the same format. Dont be afraid to update your remediation advice on a re-test. No one is perfect, its okay. If you find that a particular technique doesnt work for resolving an issue, note that and find a technique that does. This can be included in the trust factor mentioned above allowing you to scale your confidence in a given fix more easily. What if you a find a new issue during the retest? Then you are doing your job. Make a new vulnerability report and let your client know, then begin the same process all over again. This just makes you a better tester as you will learn to be more and more thorough as you go on.

As I re-read this article I realize its probably very condescending sounding to experienced testers. If that is the case, then this article is not for you. Based on this review of some big name firms testing reports though, a lot of folks need a refresher course in report writing. These tips would apply to whatever sort of testing you are doing. From physical penetration to social engineering to remotely exploiting a server, all of these things require proper and useful reporting. Your hard work and your end customers deserve nothing less.

BILL MATHEWS
Bill Mathews is co-founder and lead geek of Hurricane Labs, an information security firm founded in 2004. Bill wrote this article while recovering from pneumonia so any errors are purely the result of medication. :-) You can reach Bill @billford on Twitter and be read other musings on http:// blog.hurricanelabs.com

Report Tips

Before I wrap up I wanted to just review some general reporting tips. Provide a cheat sheet so that your end audience can quickly see a general summary of what is in
01/2011 (1) May

Page 16

http://pentestmag.com

Page 17

BLACK BOX

How Fuzzy Are You Today?


A Guide to Client-Side Fuzzing Using Peach
What do you do if your targets are fully patched and you do not find any configuration issues during a penetration test? Do you take the blue pill and tell the client hes safe (and everybodys happy) or do you take the red pill and go deep into the rabbit hole to find those hidden bugs? Lets take the red pill and see what happens

his article does not disclose any vulnerabilities; it presents a generic way of finding vulnerabilities by doing client-side fuzzing, using the Peach fuzzing framework. You will also find an example of how to fuzz a HTTP client by feeding it with malformed HTTP response headers.

your chances are lowered by the fact that decent software vendors may have a well-defined quality assurance program. This program may not be limited to functionality testing only, but it may also include security testing using some of the methods described below.

Bug hunting today

Nowadays, it is not easy finding vulnerabilities in decent software. Besides the high amount of time and resources you must spend in finding vulnerabilities,

Figure 1. Gaining access by attacking the client

Figure 2. Sequence of events for client-side fuzzing

01/2011 (1) May

Page 18

http://pentestmag.com

Nevertheless, finding exploitable vulnerabilities is a rewarding activity. Some of the best vulnerability researchers may win substantial prizes at hacking competitions such as Pwn2Own or they could make money on their findings by selling their code on the legitimate/illegitimate exploit markets.

void function(char* user_input) { sprintf(local_buf, Received from user: %s, user_input); char local_buf[500];

How do we find those bugs?

There are a few approaches that can be used for finding security vulnerabilities. Each has its pros and cons and should be chosen according to your situation (software vendor, penetration tester, bug hunter, etc). If you have the source code of the target application, you can do a source code review and try to identify exploitable weaknesses. Without the source code, reverse code engineering might be a choice, but its a painful activity for medium and large applications. A common approach for vulnerability discovery is black-box testing. Fuzzing is a method of doing blackbox testing by analyzing the application according to its inputs and outputs, having little knowledge of whats inside. What do you think will happen if the following C function is called with an argument passed directly from user input?

Depending on the input data, it can behave normally or it can crash (Access violation when writing location / SIGSEGV). Of course, this is a piece of unmanaged code written in C, which does not benefit the security mechanisms offered by a runtime environment, like C#, VB or Java code does. Hence, there are some classes of bugs (buffer overflows, integer overflows, format string issues) which are prone to be found in unmanaged code (C/C++). This type of bugs will be the target of our discussion for this article.

Attack the server or the client?

The number of server applications is considerably smaller than the number of client applications. Furthermore, servers are more often updated and patched while client applications are often neglected (each user can have a different version of the client application).
Listing 1. Param element
<Peach>

<Include ns="default" src="file:defaults.xml" /> <Run name="DefaultRun"> <Test ref="test1"/>

<Logger class="logger.Filesystem">

<Param name="path" value="c:\tools\fuzzers\ peach2.3.8\peach\logs" />

</Run> </Peach>

</Logger>

<!-- other elements described below -->

Listing 2. Launching the target application under a debugger


<Test name="test1">

<StateModel ref="sm"/> <Agent ref="windbg"/> <Publisher name="socket"

<Param name="host" value="127.0.0.1"/> </Publisher> <Param name="port" value="80"/>

class="tcp.TcpListener">

<Publisher name="launch" class="process.Debugger </Test> Launcher"/>

Figure 3. Peach XML elements hierarchy

01/2011 (1) May

Page 19

http://pentestmag.com

BLACK BOX
In the vulnerability research area, there has been a considerably greater effort in fuzzing servers than fuzzing clients. The reason for this is that clients
Listing 3. Actions within a State
<Agent name="windbg">

are considered less important than servers; this is a seriously wrong assumption. Since a server trusts a client, the client becomes an extension of the servers domain of trust (see Figure 1). So lets attack a client. We will show how the Peach fuzzing framework can be used to act as a server and send malformed input to clients.

<Monitor class="debugger.WindowsDebugEngine"> <Param name="CommandLine" value="c:\ Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\ Firefox.exe http://127.0.0.1/" <Param name="StartOnCall" value="dostart" /> />

Building a client-side fuzzer

</Agent>

</Monitor>

Listing 4. StateModel
<StateModel name="sm" initialState="initial"> <State name="initial"> <Action name="start_listen" type="start" <Action name="start_target" type="call" method="dostart" publisher="launch"/> publisher="socket"/> publisher="socket"> publisher="socket"/>

If you want to fuzz, you need a fuzzer. You can write it yourself or you can use one of the many existing fuzzers on the net. Using one of these pre-existing fuzzers may or may not fully meet your expectations or needs. If you still do not want to write your own fuzzer, you can use a fuzzing framework to build a custom fuzzer to fulfill your needs. Well known fuzzing frameworks include Spike, GPF, Sulley, Autodafe and Peach (which well discuss in this article). Regardless of the network protocol, we want our fuzzing setup to follow the steps described in Figure 2. Lets see how we can implement this diagram in Peach.

About Peach

<Action name="accept" type="accept"

<Action name="recv" type="input"

Peach is a fuzzing framework, written by Michael Eddington, which is capable of performing both generation and mutation based fuzzing. The terms generation fuzzing and mutation fuzzing refer to the way the fuzzer creates output data. Generation based fuzzing uses a specification (e.g. RFC) of the fuzzed protocol or file format to generate output data which is close to the format accepted by the application. Mutation based fuzzing takes another approach for data generation. It starts from valid data (i.e. a valid file, network packet, etc) and performs various modifications (i.e. mutations) in order to trigger vulnerabilities in the target application.

</Action>

<DataModel ref="Request_Model"/>

<Action name="send" type="output" <DataModel ref="Response_Model"/> publisher="socket">

</Action>

<Action name="stop_target" type="stop" <Action name="stop_listen" type="stop" </State> publisher="socket"/> publisher="launch"/>

</StateModel>

Listing 5. Hello from server


<DataModel name="Request_Model"> </DataModel>

<String name="client_request"/>

<DataModel name="Response_Model"> </DataModel>

<String value="hello from server"/>

Our custom fuzzer must be described in a Peach Pit file, which is actually an XML file that defines the structure, type information, and relationships in the data to be fuzzed. The hierarchy of these elements is shown in Figure 3. The top element is Peach which is just a container for the other elements. When we start Peach, we actually tell the fuzzing framework to use one Run element from the XML file. One Run must contain at least one Test and an optional Logger. The Test contains a State Model (which is a series of States), an optional Agent (for instrumenting the target application) and one or more Publishers (used for transmitting data).
Page 20

01/2011 (1) May

http://pentestmag.com

Inside a certain State, the fuzzer can perform various Actions (e.g. send data, receive data, open/close files, etc). Actions are performed using data described by a Data Model. In order to specify certain values to be used in the Data Model, we can use a Data element with necessary Fields. Peach XML elements can be referenced inside other elements using the ref attribute and specifying the name of the referenced element (which can be defined elsewhere). Each element can have a certain class attribute. The best reference for Peach element classes is the source code (Python) which can be downloaded freely from www.peachfuzzer.com. Lets see how we can model the client-side fuzzer in a Peach PIT file.

Creating a custom fuzzer with Peach

In the main Peach element (Listing 1) we must include the file defaults.xml which is the configuration file for this Peach instance. This file should setup the proper paths to indicate were Peach is located and also import the standard modules. The Run element defines the starting point of the fuzzer and contains a reference to a Test element and a Logger. The Logger specifies where log messages should be written. As you can see, some elements require parameters specified by Param element. We go on detailing the referenced Test element. As you can see in Listing 2, inside a Test we specify a reference to a StateModel, a reference to an Agent element and two publishers. We differentiate Publishers

by their name. The publisher named socket tells Peach to start a TCP listener on localhost, port 80, in order to behave as a server. The other publisher launch will be used to launch the target application under a debugger. The Agent that we configured (Listing 3) is a local process which activates a Monitor component which in fact is Windows Debugger that starts the target application. One important aspect is the parameter called StartOnCall which tells the agent to start the Monitor only when an Action of type call will happen with the value/method dostart. In this way, we can control the behavior of the target application from the Actions within a State. The XML element that will model the states and transitions that our fuzzer will follow is called StateModel (Listing 4). In our case, it contains a single State called initial. Inside this state, we command Peach to perform the following Actions on specific Publishers (according to Figure 2): Publisher socket open socket and start listening Publisher launch start target under debugger
Listing 6. Launcher.html
<html> <body> Let's eat some malformed HTTP responses <br> <script type="text/javascript">
var timeout = 500; var id = "myiframeid"; function setIframe() { if(iframe) {

var iframe = document.getElementById(id);

document.body.removeChild(iframe);

iframe = document.createElement("iframe"); iframe.setAttribute("src", "http:// iframe.setAttribute("id", id); 127.0.0.1");

document.body.appendChild(iframe); }

setTimeout("setIframe();", timeout);

Figure 4. Running our fuzzer in debug mode (Part 1)

</body> </html>

</script>

setTimeout("setIframe();", timeout);

Figure 5. Running our fuzzer in debug mode (Part 2)

01/2011 (1) May

Page 21

http://pentestmag.com

BLACK BOX
Publisher socket accept for incoming connection (blocking operation) Publisher socket read input from client into DataModel Request_Model Publisher socket send output to client from DataModel Response_Model Publisher launch stop target Publisher socket close socket
Listing 7. Response_Model
<DataModel name="Response_Model">

<String value="HTTP/1.1 204 No Content\r\n" <String value="Set-Cookie: " isStatic="true"/> <String value="cookie_name"/> <String value="=" isStatic="true"/> <String value="cookie_value"/> <String value="; " isStatic="true"/> <String value="/"/> isStatic="true"/>

<String value="path=" isStatic="true"/> <String value="; " isStatic="true"/> <Block name="date">

<String value="expires=" isStatic="true"/> <String value="Thu"/>

<String value=", " isStatic="true"/> <String value="01"> </String> <Hint name="NumericalString" value="true"/>

For this skeleton fuzzer, we do not specify any fancy data model, just an input string and an output string. We expect the client to send a request (that will be stored in a DataModel) and the fuzzer will respond with the (fuzzed) message: hello from server. See Listing 5. Before running the fuzzer, it is a good idea to test our Pit file (using t switch). If there are no parsing errors, we can start the fuzzer in debug mode to see what exactly is happening. We can see in Figure 4 and Figure 5 how the framework runs all the actions that weve configured, the request message and the response message. Even though this mechanism is generic for client side fuzzing (you can fuzz any client application), it is rather slow because the fuzzer opens and closes the target application for each response generated (For example, Firefox takes about 2-3 seconds to start and make the HTTP request on my machine). Depending on the target application, we can optimize the fuzzing mechanism to be faster. In case of a web browser, we can start it just once and load the html file from Listing 6. It will automatically reload at 0.5 seconds and make a new HTTP request to our fuzzer at http://127.0.0.1. The Monitor element from Listing 4 must be modified as below (no need for StartOnCall parameter):
<Monitor class=debugger.WindowsDebugEngine>

<String value="-" isStatic="true"/> <String value="Jan"/> <String value="-" isStatic="true"/> <String value="2020"> </String> <Hint name="NumericalString" value="true"/>

Mozilla Firefox\Firefox.exe C:\tools\fuzzers\peach\ Peach2.3.8\mytest\launcher.html /> </Monitor>

<Param name=CommandLine value=c:\Program Files\

<String value=" " isStatic="true"/> <String value="00"> </String> <Hint name="NumericalString" value="true"/>

Now that we have the fuzzing mechanism working more efficiently, lets focus more on the output data. Lets suppose we want to fuzz the web browsers capacity of handling HTTP Set-Cookie header. We want to send to the browser HTTP responses like:

<String value=":" isStatic="true"/> <String value="01"> </String> <Hint name="NumericalString" value="true"/>

<String value=":" isStatic="true"/> <String value="03"> </String> <Hint name="NumericalString" value="true"/>

<String value=" " isStatic="true"/> </Block> <String value="GMT"/>

</DataModel>

<String value="\r\n\r\n" isStatic="true"/>

Figure 6. HTTP requests and fuzzed HTTP responses

01/2011 (1) May

Page 22

http://pentestmag.com

HTTP/1.1 204 No Content

Set-Cookie: cookie_name=cookie_value; path=/; expires =Thu, 01-Jan-2020 00:00:01 GMT

For this, we need to modify our data model named Response_Model as shown in Listing 7. The elements that we do not want to be fuzzed will be marked as isStatic=true . We organized the date into a Block element so it can be referenced later in the Data Model, if necessary. Please observe the Hint added to the String element which tells the fuzzer to produce numbers as strings, not as integers. Using the Add-on Live HTTP Header, we can see the headers exchanged between the target application (Mozilla Firefox) and our fuzzer. Any crashes or abnormal events will be reported in the log file that weve configured; however, crash analysis is another aspect of fuzzing, but it is beyond the scope of this article.

it might work when everything else fails. Depending on the timeframe of the pentest engagements, digging for zero days can provide interesting results. Creating a custom fuzzer using a fuzzing framework is faster than writing a dedicated one, but customizing the fuzzing framework can be time consuming at the beginning (until you obtain the desired behavior). In case of Peach, the learning curve is pretty high; however, Peach is a very powerful and complex fuzzer that has the potential of finding deeply hidden vulnerabilities.

ADRIAN FURTUNA
Adrian Furtuna works as a Senior Advisor at KPMG Romania where he is involved in penetration testing, vulnerability assessment and security audit projects. Adrian has a particular interest in offensive security techniques which he studies as part of his PhD program at Military Technical Academy of Bucharest. He has also published a number of scientific articles at various conferences discussing Red Teaming activities, cyber defense exercises and denial of service attacks. Adrian can be contacted by email at adif2k8@gmail.com.

Conclusion

Penetration testing is not limited by the power of vulnerability scanners or common manual checks. We know that there is no application that is 100% secure so its just a matter of time and work before those hidden vulnerabilities come out to light. Fuzzing is a way of finding those vulnerabilities. Although it doesnt offer any guarantees for success,

Comment
Clients Less Important Than Servers
I believe that Furtuna is exactly right about clients being less important than servers. Through my years as a penetration tester, I have seen my clients spend a lot of time and resources to lock down their servers. Overall, they do a pretty good job at this; however, client systems are treated like the red-headed step children. They are seldom managed in the same ways as the critical servers. As Furtuna points out, clients become an extension of the servers domain of trust and should be taken into consideration in the organizations entire security posture. I cant tell you how many times I have personally gained root access to an entire domain through the lack of controls over a client device. And of course, finding a vulnerable client-side application through the fuzzing example explained in this article is just one of the many ways that root access can be obtained.

JOHN J TRINCKES, JR.,


John J Trinckes, Jr., CISSP, CISM, CRISC, CTGA, C-EH, NSAIAM/IEM, MCSE-NT, A+, author of The Executive MBA in Information Security published by CRC Press and co-founder of KeeDragon.com.

01/2011 (1) May

Page 23

http://pentestmag.com

NETWORK SECURITY

Dueling Apache Tomcat


Setting up a JSP-enabled web server is cumbersome and complex. Apache Tomcat aims to solve this dilemma by providing a quick, easy, and cost-effective solution for developers to deploy their applications and services. While this is great for functionality, its default configuration can greatly decrease the security of a network.

n this article, we will explore these vulnerabilities and how penetration testers can use them to their advantage. During many penetration-testing engagements, we have found installations of Apache Tomcat that have been left with the default configuration settings in place. In fact while the installation process is quick and easy, it does not lead the administrator through important settings and forces a post-installation review that sometimes is easily forgotten. After reading this article, remote command execution could be something really simple like: Figure 1.

Step One: Identification

The first step is to identify which systems have Tomcat installed; common used TCP ports are 80 or 8080. A quick port scan will do the trick or you can manually connect to these ports with your browser and find a web page similar to the one depicted Figure 2.

Step Two: Authentication

The second step is to authenticate to the Tomcat web-based administration tools, Tomcat Manager or Tomcat Administration. As of Tomcat v5.5, the Tomcat Administration web console is no longer installed by default. If you are able to find this installed on the server; you are in luck. The default username for Tomcat Administration is admin and the password is admin or blank. Once you click on Tomcat Administration, you should see a page similar to the one depicted Figure 3.

Figure 1. Remote Command Execution through a Web browser

Figure 2. Default page for Apache Tomcat

01/2011 (1) May

Page 24

http://pentestmag.com

Figure 6. Tomcat Web Application Manager

Figure 3. Tomcat Administration login page

If you are able to login you will be able to view server settings and manage users. You can also grab the passwords for the other default users such as tomcat or role1 by looking to the html code of the page Users within the section User Definition. Quick Tip You can use Metasploit to scan the network for Apache Tomcat installations in order to identify the administration console. You can also perform a password dictionary attack to guess the correct username and password. The auxiliary module to accomplish this is named: Tomcat Administration Tool Default Access. Whether the administration console is installed or not, we can move on to our next target which is the Tomcat Web Application Manager. We can use the same admin password that was discovered earlier to login. The Tomcat Web Application Manager looks like: Figure 6.

The web console permits users to completely control applications, i.e uploading, deleting and modifying, but for the sake of our discussion lets focus on uploading. Tomcat, being a JSP-enabled webserver; accepts applications that are packaged as Java Web Application Archive files or simply WAR. In order to utilize this, we must include a JSP web shell in our WAR file. Quick Tip You might not be able to successfully guess the login credentials for web tool management. There still is a way to authenticate to the server. If you have regularuser or read access to the system, review the tomcatusers.xml file located in the following path: C:\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation\Tomcat 5.0\conf. Just replace with the servers path to Tomcat. The usernames and passwords for Tomcat are configured in plain text within this file as shown in the following Figure 7.

Figure 4. Tomcat web administration of users

Figure 5. User passwords in the html source code

Figure 7. Tomcat configuration files store passwords in plain-text

01/2011 (1) May

Page 25

http://pentestmag.com

NETWORK SECURITY

Figure 11. Creation of a new Context

Figure 8. Example of WAR content

Figure 12. Web Shell

Figure 9. Adding the web shell to the WAR package

Step Three: Control

During this step, we are going to modify a WAR file to include a web shell to execute operating system commands via our browser. Lets start downloading a sample WAR file such as: http://tomcat.apache.org/ tomcat-5.5-doc/appdev/sample/sample.war. The content of the WAR file can be shown by an archive tool like 7-zip as in the following Figure 8. The next step is to add a JSP web shell like for example: http: //net-square.com/papers/one_way/one_way.html#4.0.4. Copy the source code in a text editor like Notepad and save it with the filename cmdexec.jsp. Drag this file to the contents of the WAR file and we got a cooked archive like: Figure 9. The last step is to upload the cooked WAR package through the Tomcat Manager: in the Deploy section select the WAR file to deploy using the Browse button and then the Deploy button does the magic. When the upload is finished, the Tomcat Manager shows an OK

message and a new web application appears as in the following Figure 11. The cmdexec.jsp web shell from our new application is now ready to be used as we can test in a local installation of Tomcat: see Figure 12. Remember the first figure of this article? Simply the shell command whoami was filled in a form like the one above. Our pentesting is over: we have demonstrated the complete control of the system because any command can be now remotely executed. Quick Tip By default, the Tomcat service is installed under the SYSTEM account in Microsoft Windows. This account has more rights that even the local Administrator account. Quick Tip The testing we have seen can be automated by using Metasploit with the exploit named: Apache Tomcat Manager Application Deployer Authenticated Code Execution but consider that sometimes it doesnt provide reliable results and the manual approach should be chosen.

JOVON ITWARU
Jovon Itwaru is lead security analyst at Core Defend Technologies. He provides a holistic approach to security that allows clients to better under security and the role they must take in proactively defending their network. He can be reached at jovon@coredefend.com. More information about the company can be found at http://www.coredefend.com

Figure 10. Deploying the cooked WAR package

01/2011 (1) May

Page 26

http://pentestmag.com

Page

WEB APPLICATION SECURITY

Heuristic Methods vs. Automated Scanners


Which is the most efficient? Humans? Machines? Or the two in tandem?
As most penetration testers know, a manual check of a Web Application can be much more thorough than a completely automated one. By combining a few assistant tools for example, an intercepting proxy (see Figure 1) and perhaps a vulnerability scanner that may find overlooked parts one can improve his or her assessment of actual vulnerabilities.

he manual methodology, however differs appreciably from one ethical hacker to another, and in many cases only very basic (common) ways of approach are used. By using a heuristic method manually, the efficiency of finding a vulnerability within the target web application can increase drastically. So what exactly is this methodology to which Im referring? It may seem quite common to some individuals even though it hasnt been publicly sharedyet (except, of course, in this magazine). Creating a fuzz-word (also known as a XSS-locator string) is the first step, as this can break almost any non-sanitized function relying

on proper syntax, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) issues, and almost any other input validation vulnerability. This is only the first step; the second step or goal is to know how WordPress, vBulletin, Joomla, etc. looks not only in HTML source code but also by design. The colours and various other elements may have been changed, but generally the blocks where information is displayed are usually at the same location on every site. This makes it easy to see if the site runs a custom-made or a well-known CMS. For example, vBulletin 4 almost always has the login field in the top right, and within the source code in the header fields, theres usually a line of included JavaScript code (see Figure 2) which reveals the overall version (rarely patch level). This would indicate that the target is running vBulletin 4.1.2, and by looking in the JavaScript file the patch level may be revealed, depending on how the administrator updated the forums the last time he or she did so. With Joomla its common to see com_xxx in the source, and with WordPress a common item within the source would be wp-content.

Figure 1. Burp Suite Free: Spidering a website

Figure 2. Firebug: Viewing a JavaScript file

01/2011 (1) May

Page 28

http://pentestmag.com

Figure 4. Exploit-DB: Searching for vBulletin Exploits


Figure 3. FireFox: Viewing the HTML source of a website

Those are just examples, but more important is to know how a default installation looks like as compared to one with add-ons. Some add-ons are hard to spot, almost transparent while some leave comments within the source like <-- Super Insecure Addon 1.2.3 --> (see Figure 3) which gives the advanced penetration tester an advantage, since he can then just download the addon and look for vulnerabilities within this him- or herself and perhaps find a 0day exploit! But why find an unknown vulnerability within the target web application? Maybe its fully up to date and patched, so there are no other ways of entry after a very thorough and automated scan has been done. In these cases a penetration tester could, if time allows it, look for these so-called 0days.

The Difference in Development Life Cycles

So far, many automated scanners would have found nothing or almost nothing, because theyre not designed

to find all kinds of 0days, but hopefully most penetration testers are. One should understand, however, that it may be extremely time-consuming to do find some of these exploits by hand. Some of these unknown vulnerabilities are often found by accident, if the target web application is a well-known one or has at least had a good Secure Development Life Cycle (SDLC). If the target web application didnt have any security applied at the development phase, an automated scanner would probably pick up vulnerabilities in a matter of seconds, and if the web application did have security somewhat applied, an automated scanner might not find any of the vulnerabilities, but a penetration tester with the right knowledge, not wanting to look through hundreds or thousands lines of code, would probably find one or several vulnerabilities. The biggest danger is that the developer decides that the scanner he has chosen is the best and the only right tool to use, and if that returns no vulnerabilities (false negatives), then there arent any. Therefore, if a human penetration tester and not just an automated scanner

Contribute
Penetration Testing Magazine is a community-oriented magazine. We want IT security specialists and enthusiasts to work together and create a magazine of the best quality, attractive to every individual and enterprise interested in the penetration testing field. If you are interested in being a part of our community submit an article or bring up a subject you consider important and up-to-date. Are there any trends on the market youd like to take a closer look at? Are there any tools or solutions worth reviewing or presenting to the community? Are there any touchy and controversial issues you feel have to be discussed in public? Then share your opinions with us. If you run an IT security company, your contribution is the most welcome. Tell us about your solutions and advertise in the magazine for free, or have a special issue devoted exclusively to you. As long as you provide top-notch quality of you writings, we are always ready to cooperate and help your company develop with us. Are you a student? Were looking forward to you articles! Fresh attitude, opinions and beliefs of the young and budding IT security gurus are invaluable for us. You will give your career a great start when you write to a respectable IT magazine. Showing an issue with your name among the names of other authors and often famous ones will be your great asset during a job interview. If you think you dont have enough time to create an article from scratch, but feel interested in the magazine become one of our beta testers. This way you will get the opportunity to look at a new issues contents before its even published, and your name, too, will appear in the magazine. If you feel the need to contribute and share you knowledge, but dont have enough spare time for creative writing beta testing is just for you.

Sections: White Box Black Box Web Security Network Security Wireless Security

Application Security Standards and Methodologies How To Open Source Intelligence Vulnerabilities

WEB APPLICATION SECURITY


had tested the application, it wouldve been more secure and not contained several security issues.

The Backend + (Fingerprinting & Subdomains)

Another important factor is the backend: the webserver is a major part of this, but so also is the coding language used, both of which may give the penetration tester an idea of which vulnerabilities to expect. A common vulnerability for too many ASP(x) powered sites, would be the infamous search.asp?q=XSS vulnerability, which is often non-persistent (reflected) yet still a vulnerability. Imagine a website running vBulletin, which is a forum web application. The footer containing the version information is removed, and the generator meta header is also removed. The general design is heavily altered, but it still looks somewhat like vBulletin. So the penetration tester assumes he or she can use the Version Disclosure trick shared earlier in this article, to find out which version is installed. If a vulnerable version is found and theres a public Proof of Concept available (see Figure 4), then the penetration tester has already made one foothold, depending on the type of vulnerability. Now imagine another website, perhaps a custom-built one where an automated scanner returns no results. Still, almost all web applications or custom websites contain at least one vulnerability, because sometimes the vulnerable applications are located on outdated subdomains. In order to find these subdomains, which are often on the same server, the penetration tester can use (e.g.) Google if the targets nameserver does not allow AXFR requests which potentially could return a zone-transfer. (see Figure 5.) In this case all the subdomains points to the same IPaddress, which the penetration tester is allowed to test, including all vhosts (Virtual Hosts) on the webserver. Each virtual host can have its own physical directories separate from the others, and these can even contain vulnerable code as well! Therefore it is logical to test these if they are within reach of the penetration. The query that most automated scanners would most likely not even try could look like the one in Figure 6. Assume the target runs PHP, which Apache usually

does. In case of ASP, its most likely powered by an IIS webserver. The above query returns the main domain and subdomains (excluding the forum), where the fileextension is .php. It can also be modified to exclude directories and several other subdomains, so instead of excluding the forum, www is often used in my queries, which filters most of the main website away, making it easier to find potential subdomains with dynamic PHP scripts, for example. Usually it is possible to just look at error pages (e.g., 404) served by the webserver, or HTTP headers for that sake, in order to determine the scripting language and webserver. The problem is that some administrators change these headers and error pages, but rarely the file extension, except in SEO cases where .php might be .html instead, but on the backend its still PHP files used to serve the website. The reason why this query is used is because many websites use rewrite-rules (e.g., mod_rewrite) these days, so its sometimes hard to guess whats powering the target website. Especially when theres no default index file such as index.php. So by finding just one dynamic file with the .php extension, its easier not only to assume which vulnerabilities to look for, but also to test this mentioned file or perhaps several returned files from the search query. Most PHP files without any visible GET or POST requests visible are not much help, and some do not show even if these files are accessed directly; however, if theres a link to one of these, then Google will most likely know some or all of the requests that may contain a vulnerability due to non-sanitized input.

Heuristically Approaching & Avoiding WAFs

Imagine you see that the file accepts 2 GETrequests, the first one is loggedin=1 and the second is downfile=info.pdf. Obviously if the pseudo-file info.pdf can be downloaded with this call, the penetration tester should try to download other files, perhaps the well-known /etc/passwd. An automated scanner will try

Figure 5. dig: Requesting a DNS Zone-Transfer

Figure 6. Google: Using Operators for Recon and Enumeration

01/2011 (1) May

Page 30

http://pentestmag.com

predefined strings until it finds something useful, while a manual and heuristic method would probably be much more fruitful. (see Figure 7) Using a program to find these possible vulnerable files is a good idea, but testing them manually may return more interesting results, such as shown below. In this case, a locator-string like pentest01/\>< could be used. It doesnt look like much, but if all characters are returned without being sanitized, then its possible to perform XSS. If a SQL-error is returned, perhaps invalid syntax then or broke the SQL-query, which thereby allows a possible SQL-injection. If a file-error is returned, then LFI or RFI may be possible. In case of no such command, perhaps RCE (Remote Code Execution) could be attempted. This way of finding vulnerabilities only applies to input validation vulnerabilities, which are often the most dangerous vulnerabilities. Because the penetration testers goal is to gain access to the server backend, its logical to assume that high-risk vulnerabilities are the most valuable. Its true that XSS can lead to Remote Code Execution as well (see Figure 8), but this approach requires user interaction. Our locator-string (a.k.a. fuzz-word) required 1 query (see Figure 9) while the automated scanner created most likely a massive overhead by sending perhaps 10 different strings to determine if there was a vulnerability and what it might have been. Most Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) wouldve picked up on this amount of attempts and traffic, while the fuzz-word may not have been detected at all. Most Web Application Firewalls (WAF) would not get triggered by this fuzz-word either, except that some including web applications may not respond very well to the slash (/) due to mod_rewrite or > and < since they are uncommon in most queries. Hence the reason some WAFs are triggered by them. Theres a reason why the locator-string is written like >< in the end, and not <>. This is because most

Figure 8. EvilWebtool: vBSEO XSS Exploit

WAFs are triggered by <[a-Z0-9]>, while they are not yet triggered by >[a-Z0-9]<. This gives the penetration tester an advantage in that it requires fewer queries for success. An experienced penetration may need to ask him- or herself, if <[a-Z0-9]> is blocked by a WAF, then how does this give a pentester an advantage over an automated scanner? Imagine an aggressive WAF on, lets say, a website many people visit within the Information Security community. A penetration tester fires up his favorite scanner, and one minute later, hes banned for a few hours. Either he learns from this mistake, and finds out it was <[a-Z0-9]> that triggered the ban, or he continues to restart the scanner whenever possible and wastes precious time. Now imagine a blackhat has discovered a Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability on the same target, but the WAF blocks all malicious looking attacks and bans her temporarily for a few hours. However, this blackhat has no timeframe within which to finish the attack, so after researching the WAF she finds a DoS vulnerability enabling her to shut the WAF down and thereby abuse the LFI vulnerability she found earlier. Most automated scanners are using real attacks, of course, as they are most efficient this way and are able to determine whether there is a vulnerability or not instead of using these so called fuzz-words (see Figure 9). So the chance a WAF picks up the attacks is much higher than one single fuzz-word designed to avoid even most but not all aggressive WAFs.

Figure 7. 0day: Local File Disclosure

Figure 9. FireFox: After submitting our fuzz-word to a script

01/2011 (1) May

Page 31

http://pentestmag.com

WEB APPLICATION SECURITY


Table 1. Humans vs. machines

Humans
Finding Advanced 0days Simultaneous Requests Smart Interpreting of Results Massive Variations in Requests Detect All Common Vulnerabilities Discover New Attack Methods Enumerate Large SQL Tables Yes No Yes Time consuming! Time consuming! Yes Time consuming!

Machines
No (Requires AI) Yes No (Requires AI) Yes Yes No (Requires AI) Yes

Why not just use or ?


A manual audit of (e.g.) access.logs would tell most aware webmasters from miles away that someone tried to perform a SQL injection. A fuzzword is harder to spot if it looks legit. But why is this important? Some penetration tests also check the skills of the administrators, internal security auditors, or perhaps just IDSs to see if they would be able to pick up a blackhat-looking attack if it happened. The target script may not break with just or , it may even require a / or \ , or maybe the penetration tester does not know if a particular SQL-query breaks upon or , so its reasonable to include the most common characters a function will break upon receiving. (Including all possible special characters is not recommended, nor would it be efficient.)

After all, at many points humans are still smarter than machines, and if a penetration tester knows a web application very well, then he or she also knows which vulnerabilities to look for and where they might be based on a behavioral pattern from previous vulnerabilities. With vBulletin, for example, its obvious to look for XSS and SQL Injections in new versions with new features. Looking for LFI and RFI in this particular web application could be a complete waste of time except in the add-ons. If new developers have come aboard or an entire development team has been switched out, then the entire security of the target web application may have become insecure, so its good to know how the company behind the app is working and evolving too. What are some of the differences between humans and machines, then? A report a couple of years ago, revealed that 44 out of the 50 most visited websites in a country had at least 1 vulnerability and many of them ran custom-built websites, but it was also well-known web applications (mostly via add-ons and subdomains) that included vulnerabilities. Many of these websites had been tested with automated scanners, but apparently not properly and/or with manual methods. The third and final step is intuition applied to knowledge.

HANSMICHAEL VARBAEK
Hans-Michael Varbaek has been in the hacking community for a little over 10 years now, though with shorter and longer breaks from time to time. Around 5 years ago he decided to get back after a long period of inactivity, where he began creating custom cheats for WoW. (Mountain Climbing, No Clip, etc.) A year later he began the education as SysAdmin, and during this time he created InterN0T after brainstorming like crazy. Then he moved to Sweden to work within IT- support, with some of the big manufacturers of products like printers, cameras, and so forth. Meanwhile, he discovered his first 0days in Web Applications, and a year later he was going for CTP+OSCE, which he completed successfully., while shortly Shortly thereafter he began blogging about Web Application Security at Exploit-DB.

When a download file script is encountered, its obvious to test for LFI, RFI, Information Disclosure, and so forth. But an automated scanner may not know the target script is actually serving files from the filesystem; it may think it serves them from a SQL Database and therefore attempt to SQL Inject instead, which may lead to no results at all.

What is considered best practice nowadays?

Dont rely too much on any automated scanner. Use them as a complement to your toolbox as well as to your own methods. While the automated scanner does all the boring work, such as crawling the website and trying the most common attack vectors, the penetration tester could simultaneous apply more advanced heuristic methods and look for vulnerabilities in the same or other places.
01/2011 (1) May

Page 32

http://pentestmag.com

Want to have all the issues of Data Center magazine? Need to keep up with the latest IT news? Think youve got what it takes to cooperate with our team?

Check out our website and subscribe to Data Center magazines newsletter! Visit: http://datacentermag.com/newsletter/

HOW-TO

Operationalizing

Penetration Testing Results Using Network Monitoring Software All For Free
We will model the results of a penetration test using network and application monitoring tools. The end result will be a dashboard showing you the vulnerabilities that still exist and the ones that have been remediated. This gives you a quick view of your vulnerabilities and the speed with which theyre resolved.

enetration Testing these days is often done on a one-off basis, meaning companies do them once a month, once a quarter or once a year and then never think about them again. I find that to be a shame and think that penetration testing can be an invaluable tool in vulnerability management when performed properly. One of my hobbies/passions/interests/whatever in the industry is finding a way to effectively operationalize security. That is, moving security out of the this is theoretically possibly realm and into the hey, we should fix this because its happening now realm. Part of this, I think, is finding a way to utilize the tools used by our compatriots in the network and applications management domains. This article will use two very popular (well... one very popular and one reallyshould-be popular) tools in the network monitoring and application monitoring spaces respectively. This will give us a way to display that the vulnerabilities from the report still exist as reported and measure the response/ remediation time.

DVWA Damn Vulnerable Web Application (http:// www.randomstorm.com/dvwa-security-tool.php) An intentionally naughty web application. A Linux operating system. I used Ubuntu 10.10 for everything, but you may use what you wish.

Tools Needed:

Icinga (http://www.icinga.org) A fork of the popular Nagios (www.nagios.org) monitoring suite. Webinject (http://www.webinject.org) A very powerful Perl script tool that allows you to build test cases for web applications.
01/2011 (1) May

You will obviously need network connectivity between the machines and virtual machines are recommended for this exercise. You will also have to be able to talk to the web application on the desired ports (typically ports 80, 443). Setting up these tools is beyond the scope of this article, but the installation documentation for all three tools is excellent, plus there are LiveCDs for two out of the three of them, so go ahead and get your environment set-up. In our theoretical world, lets pretend we just received a penetration test report that our web application (DVWA) has a weak password associated with it. For this example the login is admin/password. We begin by using Webinject to test that the login does indeed work. This is done by creating a testcase in Webinject language: see Listing 1. The first test, cleverly given the id of 1, verifies that the login.php page loads correctly, we want to be sure its there before we try to login to it. The second test then posts our username (admin) and our weak password to login.php and then verifies we can see
http://pentestmag.com

Page 34

Listing 1. Creating a testcase in Webinject language


---testcases.xml <testcases repeat="1"> <case

description1="Load Login Page" method="get"

id="1"

description2="verify Page Loads" url="http://192.168.38.156/login.php"

/> <case

verifypositive="Damn Vulnerable Web Application"

id="2"

description1="Verify Weak Login Works" method="post" url="http://192.168.38.156/login.php"

postbody="username=admin&password=password" />

verifypostive="Welcome to Damn Vulnerable Web App"

</testcases>

the content behind the login. We can further extend this to test cases encompassing everything on our reports. SQL Injections, XSS bugs, etc., can all be modeled this way and monitored for. The beauty of using Webinject is it allows us to use it easily as a nagios/Icinga plugin. Simply add <reporttype>nagios</ reporttype> to config.xml and you will get nagios/Icinga compatible output. Now you could very easily be done at this point. You have some test cases to run that verifies the issues found in the report. You could put this in a cron job that emails you the status every couple of days and be perfectly happy. However, with a little more work you can integrate this verification with Icinga and then have a near real-time dashboard showing the status of your remediation efforts. This integration will do a few things for you, most importantly, it will provide some perspective on how much badness was really found during your penetration test. It will also add some accountability as you can break up the dashboard by responsible groups. This way the server administrators can see what is going on with the servers and the application team can see just the applications. Finally, it can provide some reporting for
01/2011 (1) May

you on how fast vulnerabilities are getting resolved. This can be a powerful tool in your arsenal and it speaks the languages of your network and application teams, as well as, articulating the vulnerabilities to your security team while, providing metrics for your business team.

BILL MATHEWS
Bill Mathews is co-founder and lead geek of Hurricane Labs, an information security firm founded in 2004. Bill wrote this article while recovering from pneumonia so any errors are purely the result of medication. :-) You can reach Bill @billford on Twitter and be read other musings on http:// blog.hurricanelabs.com

Page 35

http://pentestmag.com

TOOLS

Pulling Shellcode From Network Stream


In computer security terms, a shellcode is used as a payload in exploiting software vulnerabilities. It consists of small piece of codes, the exploitation of which may result in the attacker starting a command shell, from which the attacker can control the compromised computer; hence the term shellcode. But the function is not limited to spawn a shell only, it can go the other way around.

hellcode can either be local or remote, depending and event driven analysis of IDS alerts. Sguils main on whether it gives an attacker control over component is an intuitive GUI that provides access to a the machine it runs on (local) or over another wide variety of security related information, including realmachine through a network (remote) [1]. Shellcode time IDS alerts, network session database and full packet can usually be seen and grabbed from the network stream with the help of proper tools in hand. Metasploit framework provides ready to run shellcode modules that can be compiled easily. Earlier days of exploitation Figure 1. Snort Rule and Signature with shellcode required lots of coding and programming efforts. Metasploit has simplified this in their framework. In this article, we will use several security tools to pull the shellcode from network stream and analyze the output.

Tools Used

To perform analysis of network stream, several open source security tools are demonstrated in this article, namely the Sguil framework, Snort Intrusion Detection System, Wireshark and Libemu. Note that not all of these tools are necessary required in shellcode analysis. This is only for demonstration purposes.

Sguil
Sguil

framework [2] is the standard tool used in Network Security Monitoring (NSM) Figure 2. Sguil Framework
01/2011 (1) May Page 36

http://pentestmag.com

Figure 5. Wireshark

Figure 3. Transcript Option

captures. Widely considered as the de facto IDS standard, Snort has been used as part of the main components in Sguil framework, as well as sancp, pads and pcap.

It is designed to be used within network intrusion/ prevention detections and honeypots.Libemu can also be added as extension in Wireshark. We use libemu here to detect shellcodes, execute and emulate the shellcodes. Output of the emulated process can be seen and we can study the behavior and what the shellcode does. Libemu can be obtained from the libemu website [3].

Wireshark
Wireshark

Snort Rules Definition And Signature

is a popular network protocol analyzer and is used to analyze network traffic for Unix and Windows. We can gain lots of informationrelating to network activities using Wireshark as well as detecting the shellcodes that have been triggered by the Snort IDS. This step will be explained later.

Libemu
Libemu

is a small library written in C offering basic x86 emulation and shellcode detection using GetPC heuristics.

Analyst can start tracing incidents by checking and monitoring network security systems and devices. In this article, Snort IDS is used as the main alert indicator. Below is the content of the rule set used on the detection of shellcode. This has been taken from the emerging-exploit.rules from the default Emerging Threats rule set. Consider the above Snort rule (Figure 1). This particular rule will be triggered if the source of attack is from external network with shellcode ports to home or internal network that matches with rules content. The rule content is D9 EE D9 74 24 F4 5B 81 73 13 and 83 EB FC E2 F4 which matches default Metasploit encoder.

Sguil Alert System And Analysis

The analysis starts by analyzing alerts from Snort IDS. Sguil framework has provided a comprehensive

Figure 4. Transcript Output

Figure 6. Follow TCP stream option

01/2011 (1) May

Page 37

http://pentestmag.com

TOOLS

Figure 7. Suspected Shellcode

Figure 9. Shellcode Conversion

environment where analyst can see alerts that trigger the rules discussed on Section: Snort Rules Definition And Signature. Figure 2 shows the Sguil frontend. The main question for analysts on viewing such alerts and attacks is that what they are (the attackers) trying to do and what was the payload used within the attack. Here we can see the attacker using Metasploit encoder that has been triggered by the Snort IDS rule identified by Exploit x86 PexFnstenvMov/Sub Encoder. To help us understand and grab the shellcodes, below are some of the steps that we can make.

the alert. In Figure 5, by clicking on the Alert ID column, the analyst can move to Wireshark option which will launch Wireshark application to help further investigation of the payload.The analyst can now proceed with network analysis by navigating to Follow TCP Stream in Figure 6 inside Wireshark application. The output of Follow TCP Stream can be seen in Figure 7. Here we can see the highlighted area of hex dump is the suspected components of the shellcode due to NOP-slide opcode 0x90.

View The Transcript Event:

Shellcode Analysis

In Figure 3, the analyst can perform a quick view of a transcript event by right click on the Alert ID number, and choosing Transcript. Transcript is very useful for ASCII-based protocols, and it generates full content data for the alert, if available. Figure4 shows the output of Transcript and gives analyst a quick view of the content data for the alert. In Figure 4 we can see an overview of the attack, but this normally is not sufficient in doing in-depth analysis on network-based attack.

In x86 exploits, the most commonly used NOP-slide uses opcode 0x90 (NOP) [4]. Network intrusion detection system like Snort and other IDS brandscan detect long sequences of NOP, which is most commonly used for timing purposes, to force memory alignment, to prevent hazards, to occupy a branch delay slot, or as a

Read The Full Content Of Pcap Using Wireshark:

Within Sguil framework, analysts can launch Wireshark where they can inspect full content data generated by

Figure 10. Shellcode executed in libemu sctest


Figure 8. Hex Output

01/2011 (1) May

Page 38

http://pentestmag.com

References

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellcode [2] http://sguil.sourceforge.net/ [3] http://libemu.carnivore.it/ [4] http://www.phreedom.org/solar/honeynet/scan20/scan20.html [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP [6] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms742212%28v=vs.8 5%29.aspx [7] http://sandsprite.com/shellcode_2_exe.php [8] http://malzilla.sourceforge.net/

placeholder to be replaced by active instructions later on in program development. Furthermore, this matches the Snort signature in contents D9 EE D9 74 24 F4 5B 81 73 13 and 83 EB FC E2 F4. To analyze this, copy the selected area from Wireshark output and paste it in a file, we name it here asx86penv_hexdump. A simple bash script to get the hex only value can be implemented for better output. For example:
$ more x86penv_hexdump | cut -d -f3-19 | sed -e s/ //g

shellcode will try to establish a reverse connection to IP address x.x.227.12 on port 18005. Prior to establishing the reverse connection to the said IP address, the shellcode will call a function called LoadLibraryA to load a dll library. The shellcode later will initiate a standard connection startup by calling a sequence of functions, which are WSAStartup, WSASocket [6] and connect. The connect function will receive a set of parameters, which will be used later to connect to the IP address and to port number 18005. The payload used in this attack will establish a reverse connection to the malicious server x.x.227.12 on port 18005. In this case, we have already captured two important pieces of information in our analysis which are the attacker IP and the port number it connects to. Further analysis of testing the actual binary from the shellcode can be conducted to see what are the activities involved while initiating and establishing the reverse connection to the attacker IP and port number.

Conclusion

The above shell command will produce the output we needed as in Figure 8. The extracted hex can then be copied and pastedto the online shellcode to exe converter [7] to get the bytes only format. In Figure 9, save the output as bytes only. The bytes.sc file is actually a data file format whichlater on will be fed to libemusctest command to get the shellcode analysis.An easier and simpler way is actually to directly feed the raw file, which is a pcap file format that can be downloaded from the Sguil framework. The raw file later on will be fed for analysis with libemu sctest and produce the same results as the bytes.sc file. However, this does not work with all raw format files.

Libemu analysis and output

To proceed with shellcode analysis, libemu is used to emulate and detect the shellcode. To use libemu sctest, simply issue this command:
$ /opt/libemu/bin/sctest -Sgvs 10000000000000 < bytes.sc

Pulling shellcode from network stream is possible, given that we use the proper tools and technique while extracting it. Further analysis usually is required to fully understand the shellcode behavior to the extent on was it successful in exploiting the systems. By using widely available free and open source tools such as Snort IDS, Wireshark and libemu, shellcode analysis for network based attack becomes less hectic. For further analysis and reverse engineering part, shellcode that has been pulled from the network stream can be converted to binary or .EXE format file. This is crucial for analyst to do live malware analysis or reverse engineering by running the binary inside a secure lab environment. Malzilla [8], a malware hunting tool also utilizes libemu in their program for shellcode analyzer and detection. Libemusctest function can also be integrated within Wireshark for immediate shellcode detection. This will be covered in the next version of the article.

SALAHUDIN WAN KHAIRUZZAMAN


Salahudin Wan Khairuzzaman is a security technologist and intrusion analyst at Malaysian CERT (MyCERT). His area of focus and interest is network security monitoring and analysis, distributed honeynet, network/infrastructure planning and virtualization. He is also one of CyberSAFE ambassador at CyberSecurity Malaysia and conducted several presentations for Malaysian public regarding Internet security.

Several sctest option to be understand here are the S, which will read shellcode or buffer from stdin, -g or -getpc to run getpc mode and try to detect a shellcode, -s is maximum number of steps to run. For example in Figure 10, the value is set to 10000000000000 and v option is for verbose output. Belowis the emulated output by libemu that is generated from thebytes.sc file. Figure 10 shows the shellcode executed inside libemus sctest. Based on the figure, we see that the
01/2011 (1) May

Page 39

http://pentestmag.com

INTERVIEW

Interview with

Gary McGraw,
Ph.D. CTO Cigital
Gary McGraw from Cigital about his views on software security and the Building Security In Maturity Model.

You are a recognizable figure in the world of IT security, but for the sake of introduction, could you give us a nut-shell story of your work in this field and how you see it?

Software security is a field that Ive been working on diligently for the past fifteen years. Its been interesting to watch it grow and evolve, and turn into a real field over those fifteen years. Now there are lots of people and firms that are doing plenty of things to make software better, which in my view is the only way to make improvements in computer security. I work for Cigital as the CTO, and we help large enterprises with setting up and executing software security initiatives. There are many firms doing that sort of thing now. At Cigital we help those firms both plan and execute software security initiatives.

appraoch, even though they dont really have a software security methodology per se. You can use the BSIMM to measure big banks, like Bank of America and all their seven divisions. By far the best thing about the measuring aspect of the BSIMM is that you can start to do some science, some comparison between software security initiatives. So, its a very much data-driven scientific exercise in software security. (See http://bsimm.com for more and to download a free copy of the model for yourself.)

Your main project right now is the Building Security In Maturity Model.

You have always advocated the necessity of strengthening software rather than concentrating on devising outside security systems, like firewalls, or malware protection. Is the BSIMM the embodiment of your convictions in this field?

BSIMM is one of my projects we always have a million things going on at Cigital! The notion behind the BSIMM is to be able to measure a large-scale software security initiative and tell whether progress is being made. We gather data to help you strategize about how to do a better job. The cool thing is that the BSIMM was designed to be able to measure progress regardless of what software security methodology you are following. That is, you can use the BSIMM to measure Microsoft SDL, which weve done, you can use the BSIMM to measure Googles
01/2011 (1) May

It is. What I have advocated is building systems that are secure in the first place, instead of trying to protect broken ones. The state of the practice back in the mid-1990s was to put a firewall between the bad people and the broken stuff. And my simple question was, how come the stuff is broken? If you take that philosophy to heart, you end up working on building more secure software and thats exactly what Cigital does. We invented technology like code-scanning tools (we built the one behind the Fortify code scanner that recently got sold to HP, for example). That kind of technology and that kind of approach is really becoming popular now. Its a great pleasure for me to watch the blossoming of this field.
http://pentestmag.com

Page 40

How would you describe the idea behind BSIMM? How does it work and what outcome does it produce?

We gather data first from firms now we have data from 33 of them. Weve actually made over sixty measurements if you include major divisions inside the 33 firms. We gather all of this data and we build a model that you can use to measure any software security initiative. If you have a firm that hasnt been measured yet, what you do is you go in and you sit with the executives who run the software security group and also (at separate times) with the people who run different development groups; you interview them about software security and what theyre doing. The interview questions are not leading questions at all. Instead, the exercise is meant to elicit the data needed to score somebody against the BSIMM. You can actually make lists of what activity has been observed in the firm. Sets of observed activities collectively add up to the score. Then, there are many ways that you can visualize those data, including low resolution views and high resolution views, all the way to the level of the 109 activities that we describe in the BSIMM. When you do that, you get a really clear view of what your software security initiative looks like in comparison to all of the others in the data set. It is a very powerful technique, especially when you use it to discuss your budgets, or where you stand next to your peers. Right now we have more data from financial services organizations than any other. The second-largest dataset is from high-technology firms and independent software vendors. So theres tons of data there that you can use for comparison and then you get a score, and charts that show where you stand. You can use those data to drive your initiative, and then, later, re-measure. Actually, we have just re-measured Microsoft. We interviewed the head of the software security group thats a group of about a hundred people some of his lieutenants, and also some of the program managers for the SDL.

How do you find the cooperation with the firms involved in the project? Do they participate without reservations, or do you need to convince them that it is for a greater good? Do they trust you?

Absolutely (though not all of them allow us to go public with their names). There are currently 23 firms that do allow us to say their names, and there are 10 who would prefer that we dont. Many of the firms in the study are financial services organizations who would rather not talk about security in the public. There are also those who took a long time to give us permission. For example, now we can state that SAP, the second biggest software company on planet Earth, is part of BSIMM, but it took two years for the Germans to let us do that! Some people think that its better not to talk about security because the people their customers dont worry about it in the open; they take it for granted. The interesting thing is that this is a very European trend, while most American financial services organizations dont have any issues with going public.

Trust is vital for BSIMM.

Microsoft is a very big firm. How long does it actually take to measure such huge enterprises?

It only took us about seven hours of interviews. Then we took all the data that we got and it took a couple of weeks to compute the score. The really cool thing was that we measured Microsoft two years ago, and then we measured them just recently. We can actually talk about the changes in their initiative over time, both in terms of new activities that theyre taking on, and also in terms of those they may have dropped, or emphasized less. Now we have what is called longitudinal data in the study. There are ten firms that we have measured twice, so we can talk about the evolution and the change in the software security initiative over time.
01/2011 (1) May

Absolutely, cooperation is totally essential to gathering good data. The BSIMM doesnt work by standing outside of a firm and trying to measure it. You have to go inside, and you have to talk very frankly with the people who run the software security group. They have to invite you into their living room. And maybe even into their bathroom. However, all of the firms who chose not to be publicly discussed, do participate actively and openly in the BSIMM Community. We have a moderated mailing list that we all participate in, and we had a couple of social events including a conference last fall in Annapolis (Maryland),which lot of firms attended. Some of them may not publicly state that theyre participating in the BSIMM, but they were there at the conference. In fact, one of the really cool aspects of the project is the community that has developed a community of likeminded senior executives working on software security initiatives all day at large enterprises.

Why was BSIMM2 introduced? Is it different from the first version?

The first BSIMM that we released was the study of nine firms. BSIMM2 was released in April 2010 and it is a study of thirty firms. We took the original BSIMM measuring stick and we validated it with twenty-one more data vectors (representing new firms). The interesting thing about BSIMM2 is that once you have thirty vectors, you can begin to do statistical analysis, which is significant. We ran all sort of statistical analysis against the data and we publish the most interesting
http://pentestmag.com

Page 41

INTERVIEW
findings and talk about them. There will be BSIMM3 soon, in which even more companies will participate were shooting for forty. There will also be BSIMM Longitudinal, which amounts to studies done over time for some firms (ten so far). We will once again release all of these data publicly, so that everyone in the field and everyone in security can use it and think about metrics and measurements in a much more serious fashion than has been done in the past.

What, in your opinion, will be the security trends in 2011?

Talking about the past, you mentioned in the past creating something what you called a science of software attack. Do you really think developers need to be taught to think like a bad guy?

I used to believe that it was important to teach developers to think like that. But I have changed my mind. I still believe that it is very important for the security people in large organizations to be able to think like a bad guy and understand software exploit. But when it comes to developers, I think its much more important that you teach them how to do things right, how to do what you might call defensive programming, how to use frameworks properly, and so on. If you go to developers and you say, please code like this, steal this idea, use this design pattern, its way more effective than saying, let me teach you about cross-site scripting exploits, which is not what developers need to learn.

One of the big trends thats important to track and understand is the evolution of malware. I think that things like the Zeus Trojan that goes after banking credentials and, even worse, stuxnet, which goes after control systems, show us just exactly how bad malware can be. In my view, the only way to solve this problem is to build better software, because malware usually leverages bugs and flaws in target software in order to get onto the system in the first place. Another trend is the growth of software security as a field. Software security is beginning to move beyond the early adopters and into the wide middle ground of medium size and smaller enterprises. A lot of small to medium-sized companies are now realizing that they need to pay serious attention to software security. Thats a trend that well definitely watch unfold over the next couple of years.

What would you advise enterprises at the moment?

You have also said that at the beginning of your work you and your colleagues felt like evangelists, out to save the world because the idea that the software itself might be the cause of trouble was not popular. Has anything changed in this matter?

(laughs) I used to call myself an evangelist, but I changed the word I use to advocate. But yes, I still do feel like its still pretty early in the field and therere a lot of people who need to be convinced that software security is the right way to go. However, we have turned the corner from philosophy and wishful thinking from the notion of gosh, weve got to do something, anything to science. We know what to do, we know how to measure it, now lets all be serious adults and get this done. Its been very gratifying to watch us turn the corner from what I would like to call faith-based software security in the early days to a science of software security now.
personal http://www.cigital.com/~gem company http://www.cigital.com podcast http://www.cigital.com/silverbullet blog http://www.cigital.com/justiceleague book http://www.swsec.com

Number one piece of advice is really very simple: you should have a software security group (SSG) in your enterprise (see You Really Need a Software Security Group). The SSG shouldnt be part of the security operations group, nor should it be part of development, it should be its own group, and there needs to be a very senior executive in charge of software security, who has both authority and responsibility, and the resources necessary to carry out a software security initiative. If you look at people like, say, Brad Arkin at Adobe, or Jeff Cohen at Intel, or Steve Lipner at Microsoft, or Janne Uusilehto at Nokia, you will find a class of executives who are working diligently every day on software security with very large staffs and very large budgets. So, if you run an enterprise, and you dont have a software security group yet, you need to fix that immediately. Also note that a BSIMM measurement and involvement with the BSIMM Community is a good idea.

Could you tell us what you are working on at the moment besides BSIMM? Are you planning to publish anything soon?

Im supposed to be writing the second edition of Building Security Software. Thats a book that I wrote with John Viega originally in 2001, so its been a decade since that book was written and it still gets bought and read by people. I think it could use an updating.

PENTEST MAGAZINE TEAM


Page 42

01/2011 (1) May

http://pentestmag.com