Patch Tuesday - July 2022

Microsoft’s updates for July's Patch Tuesday fix 86 CVEs, including two vulnerabilities in their Chromium-based Edge browser that were patched earlier in the month.

One 0-day vulnerability has been patched: CVE-2022-22047 affects all currently supported versions of Microsoft’s pervasive operating system. This is an elevation-of-privilege vulnerability in the Windows Client Server Runtime Subsystem (CSRSS), a critical service that is often impersonated by malware. An attacker with an already-existing foothold can exploit this vulnerability to gain SYSTEM-level privileges. Two similar vulnerabilities in CSRSS (CVE-2022-22049 and CVE-2022-22026) were also fixed, likely as a result of Microsoft’s investigation into the in-the-wild exploitation of CVE-2022-22047.

Four critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities were fixed today. CVE-2022-22029 and CVE-2022-22039 affect network file system (NFS) servers, and CVE-2022-22038 affects the remote procedure call (RPC) runtime. Although all three of these will be relatively tricky for attackers to exploit due to the amount of sustained data that needs to be transmitted, administrators should patch sooner rather than later. CVE-2022-30221 supposedly affects the Windows Graphics Component, though Microsoft’s FAQ indicates that exploitation requires users to access a malicious RDP server.

Over a third of today’s vulnerabilities (a whopping 32 CVEs) affect their Azure Site Recovery offering. Anyone making use of this VMWare-to-Azure backup solution should be sure to upgrade to version 9.49 of the Microsoft Azure Site Recovery Unified Setup, available in Update rollup 62.

Summary charts

Patch Tuesday - July 2022
Patch Tuesday - July 2022
Patch Tuesday - July 2022
Patch Tuesday - July 2022

Summary tables

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33676 Azure Site Recovery Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-33678 Azure Site Recovery Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-33674 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-33675 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-33677 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-30181 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33641 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33643 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33655 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33656 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33657 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33661 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33662 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33663 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33665 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33666 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33667 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33672 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33673 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-33642 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33650 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33651 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33653 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33654 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33659 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33660 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33664 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33668 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33669 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33671 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.9 Yes
CVE-2022-33652 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.4 Yes
CVE-2022-33658 Azure Site Recovery Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 4.4 Yes

Azure Microsoft Dynamics vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30187 Azure Storage Library Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-2295 Chromium: CVE-2022-2295 Type Confusion in V8 No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2294 Chromium: CVE-2022-2294 Heap buffer overflow in WebRTC No No N/A Yes

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33633 Skype for Business and Lync Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.2 Yes
CVE-2022-33632 Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes

System Center vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33637 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Tampering Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-33644 Xbox Live Save Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-22045 Windows.Devices.Picker.dll Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30222 Windows Shell Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.4 Yes
CVE-2022-30216 Windows Server Service Tampering Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22041 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30214 Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-22031 Windows Credential Guard Domain-joined Public Key Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30212 Windows Connected Devices Platform Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes
CVE-2022-22711 Windows BitLocker Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.7 Yes
CVE-2022-22038 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-27776 HackerOne: CVE-2022-27776 Insufficiently protected credentials vulnerability might leak authentication or cookie header data No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-30215 Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes

Windows ESU vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30208 Windows Security Account Manager (SAM) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5 No
CVE-2022-30206 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30226 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22022 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22023 Windows Portable Device Enumerator Service Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-22029 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22039 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22028 Windows Network File System Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.9 Yes
CVE-2022-30225 Windows Media Player Network Sharing Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30211 Windows Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-21845 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes
CVE-2022-22025 Windows Internet Information Services Cachuri Module Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-30209 Windows IIS Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.4 Yes
CVE-2022-22042 Windows Hyper-V Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30223 Windows Hyper-V Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.7 Yes
CVE-2022-30205 Windows Group Policy Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.6 Yes
CVE-2022-30221 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22034 Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30213 Windows GDI+ Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22024 Windows Fax Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22027 Windows Fax Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22050 Windows Fax Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22043 Windows Fast FAT File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30220 Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22026 Windows CSRSS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22047 Windows CSRSS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Yes No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22049 Windows CSRSS Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30203 Windows Boot Manager Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.4 Yes
CVE-2022-22037 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30202 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-30224 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-22036 Performance Counters for Windows Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-22040 Internet Information Services Dynamic Compression Module Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.3 Yes
CVE-2022-22048 BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 6.1 Yes
CVE-2022-23825 AMD: CVE-2022-23825 AMD CPU Branch Type Confusion No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-23816 AMD: CVE-2022-23816 AMD CPU Branch Type Confusion No No N/A Yes

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Get the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.


How to Build and Enable a Cyber Target Operating Model

Cybersecurity is complex and ever-changing. Organisations should be able to evaluate their capabilities and identify areas where improvement is needed.

In the webinar “Foundational Components to Enable a Cyber Target Operating Model,” – part two of our Cybersecurity Series – Jason Hart, Chief Technology Officer, EMEA, explained the journey to a targeted operating cybersecurity model. To build a cybersecurity program is to understand your business context. Hart explains how organisations can use this information to map out their cyber risk profile and identify areas for improvement.

Organisations require an integrated approach to manage all aspects of their cyber risk holistically and efficiently. They need to be able to manage their information security program as part of their overall risk management strategy to address both internal and external cyber threats effectively.

Identifying priority areas to begin the cyber target operating model journey

You should first determine what data is most important to protect, where it resides, and who has access to it. Once you've pinned down these areas, you can identify each responsible business function to create a list of priorities. We suggest mapping out:

  • All the types of data within your organisation
  • All locations where the data resides, including cloud, database, virtual machine, desktops, and servers
  • All the people that have access to the data and its locations
  • The business function associated with each area

Once you have identified the most recurring business functions, you can list your priority areas. Only 12% of our webinar audience said they were confident in understanding their organisation's type of data.

Foundations to identify risk, protection, detection, response, and recovery

To start operationalising cybersecurity within a targeted area, we first set the maturity of each foundation. A strong foundation will help ensure all systems are protected from attacks and emerging threats. People play a critical role in providing protection and cyber resilience. They should be aware of potential risks so they can take appropriate actions to protect themselves and their business function.

1. Culture

A set of values shared by everyone in an organisation determines how people think and approach cybersecurity. Your culture should emphasise, reinforce, and drive behaviour to create a resilient workforce.

Every security awareness program should, at minimum, communicate security policy requirements to staff. Tracking employee policy acknowledgements will ensure your workforce is aware of the policy and helps you meet compliance requirements.

A quick response can reduce damages from an attack. Security awareness training should teach your workforce how to self-report incidents, malicious files, or phishing emails. This metric will prove you have safeguards in place. Tailor security awareness training to employees' roles and functions to measure the effectiveness of each department.

2. Measurement

Measuring the ability to identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover from cybersecurity risks and threats enables a robust operating model. The best approach requires an understanding of what your most significant risks are. Consider analysing the following:

  • Phishing rate: A reduction in the phishing rate over time provides increased awareness of security threats and the effectiveness of awareness training. Leverage a phishing simulation to document the open rates per business function to track phishing risks.
  • The number of security breaches: Track and record the number of new incidents and breaches every month. Measure a monthly percentage increase or decrease.
  • Mean time to detect (MTTD): Calculate how long it takes your team to become aware of indicators of compromise and other security threats. To calculate MTTD, take the sum of the hours spent detecting, acknowledging, and resolving an alert, and divide it by the number of incidents.
  • Patching cadence: Determine how long it takes to implement application security patches or mitigate high-risk CVE-listed vulnerabilities.
  • Mean time to recovery (MTTR): Take the sum of downtime for a given period and divide it by the number of incidents. For example, if you had 20 minutes of downtime caused by two different events over two days, your MTTR is 20 divided by two, equalling 10 minutes.

3. Accountability

A security goal generates the requirement for actions of an entity to be traced uniquely to support non-repudiation, deterrence, fault isolation, intrusion detection, prevention, after-action recovery, and legal action.

The quality of your incident response plan will determine how much time passes between assigning tasks to different business functions. Calculate the mean time between business functions aware of a cyber attack and their response. Additionally, calculate the mean time to resolve a cyber attack once they have become aware by measuring how much time passes between assigning tasks to different business functions.

Also, consider recording how internal stakeholders perform with awareness or other security program efforts to track the effectiveness of training.

4. Process

Processes are critical to implementing an effective strategy and help maintain and support operationalising cybersecurity.

To determine your increase in the number of risks, link the percent differences in the number of risks identified across the business monthly. Identify accepted risks by stakeholders and vendors monthly, and hold regular information security forums between business functions to review levels of progress. It’s also wise to document meeting notes and actions for compliance and internal reference.

5. Resources

Ownership of cybersecurity across the business creates knowledge to manage, maintain and operate cybersecurity.

When determining the effectiveness of resources, analyse what levels of training you give different levels of stakeholders. For example, administration training will differ from targeted executives.

Calculate the engagement levels of input and feedback from previous awareness training and record positive and negative feedback from all stakeholders. Ensure that different parts of the business have the required skill level and knowledge within the business function's scope. Use a skills matrix aligned to security domains to uncover stakeholders' hidden knowledge or skill gaps.

6. Automation

The automation of security tasks includes administrative duties, incident detection, response, and identification risk.

Consider implementing automation in vulnerability management processes internally and externally to the business. Additionally, detect intrusion attempts and malicious actions that try to breach your networks. And finally, automate patch management actions on all assets within scope by assessing the number of patches deployed per month based on the environment, i.e. cloud.

A journey that delivers outcomes

A cyber-targeted operating model is a unique approach that provides defensibility, detectability, and accountability. The model is based on the idea that you can't protect what you don't know and aims to provide a holistic view of your organisation's security posture. By identifying the most critical business functions and defining a process for each foundation, you can develop your cyber maturity over time.

To get the maximum benefit from Cybersecurity Series: Hackers ‘re Gonna Hack, watch Part One: Operationalising Cybersecurity to benchmark your existing maturity against the six foundational components. Watch Part 2: Foundational Components to Enable a Cyber Target Operating Model on-demand, or pre-register for Part Three: Cybersecurity KPIs to Track and Share with Your Board to begin mapping against your priority areas. Attendees will receive a complete list of Cybersecurity KPIs that align with the maturity level of your organisation.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Get the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.


Patch Tuesday - June 2022

July's Patch Tuesday sees Microsoft releasing fixes for over 60 CVEs. Top of mind for many administrators this month is CVE-2022-30190, also known as Follina, which was observed being exploited in the wild at the end of May. Microsoft provided mitigation instructions (disabling the MSDT URL protocol via the registry), but actual patches were not available until today’s cumulative Windows Updates. Even if the mitigation was previously applied, installing the updates is highly recommended.

None of the other CVEs being addressed this month have been previously disclosed or seen exploited yet. However, it won’t be long before attackers start looking at CVE-2022-30136, a critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability affecting the Windows Network File System (NFS). Last month, Microsoft fixed a similar vulnerability (CVE-2022-26937) affecting NFS v2.0 and v3.0. CVE-2022-30136, on the other hand, is only exploitable in NFS v4.1. Microsoft has provided mitigation guidance to disable NFS v4.1, which should only be done if the May updates fixing previous NFS versions have been applied. Again, even if the mitigation has been put into place, best to patch sooner rather than later.

Also reminiscent of last month is CVE-2022-30139, a critical RCE in LDAP carrying a CVSSv3 base score of 7.1, which again is only exploitable if the MaxReceiveBuffer LDAP policy value is set higher than the default. Rounding out the critical RCEs for July is CVE-2022-30163, which could allow a malicious application running on a Hyper-V guest to execute code on the host OS.

The other big news this month is the end of support for Internet Explorer 11 (IE11) on Windows 10 Semi-Annual Channels and Windows 10 IoT Semi-Annual Channels, as Microsoft encourages users to adopt the Chromium-based Edge browser (which saw fixes for 5 CVEs this month). Internet Explorer 11 on other versions of Windows should continue receiving security updates and technical support based on the OS support lifecycle, so this is only the beginning of the end for the legacy browser.

Summary charts

Patch Tuesday - June 2022
Patch Tuesday - June 2022
Patch Tuesday - June 2022
Patch Tuesday - June 2022

Summary tables

Apps vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30168 Microsoft Photos App Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30137 Azure Service Fabric Container Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 6.7 Yes
CVE-2022-30177 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30178 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30179 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30180 Azure RTOS GUIX Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Azure System Center vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29149 Azure Open Management Infrastructure (OMI) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Browser vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-22021 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.3 Yes
CVE-2022-2011 Chromium: CVE-2022-2011 Use after free in ANGLE No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2010 Chromium: CVE-2022-2010 Out of bounds read in compositing No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2008 Chromium: CVE-2022-2008 Out of bounds memory access in WebGL No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-2007 Chromium: CVE-2022-2007 Use after free in WebGPU No No N/A Yes

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30184 .NET and Visual Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes

ESU Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30140 Windows iSCSI Discovery Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30152 Windows Network Address Translation (NAT) Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-30135 Windows Media Center Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30153 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30161 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30141 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30143 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30149 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30146 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30155 Windows Kernel Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30147 Windows Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30163 Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30142 Windows File History Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.1 Yes
CVE-2022-30151 Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-30160 Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30166 Local Security Authority Subsystem Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-21166 Intel: CVE-2022-21166 Device Register Partial Write (DRPW) No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-21127 Intel: CVE-2022-21127 Special Register Buffer Data Sampling Update (SRBDS Update) No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-21125 Intel: CVE-2022-21125 Shared Buffers Data Sampling (SBDS) No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-21123 Intel: CVE-2022-21123 Shared Buffers Data Read (SBDR) No No N/A Yes

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-30157 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30158 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30174 Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.4 Yes
CVE-2022-30159 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30171 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30172 Microsoft Office Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30173 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

SQL Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29143 Microsoft SQL Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-32230 Windows SMB Denial of Service Vulnerability No No N/A Yes
CVE-2022-30136 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30139 Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30162 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30165 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30145 Windows Encrypting File System (EFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30148 Windows Desired State Configuration (DSC) Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30150 Windows Defender Remote Credential Guard Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30132 Windows Container Manager Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30131 Windows Container Isolation FS Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-30189 Windows Autopilot Device Management and Enrollment Client Spoofing Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-30154 Microsoft File Server Shadow Copy Agent Service (RVSS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 5.3 Yes
CVE-2022-30164 Kerberos AppContainer Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 8.4 Yes
CVE-2022-29111 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22018 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30188 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29119 HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30167 AV1 Video Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30193 AV1 Video Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Get the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.


Additional reading:

The Hidden Harm of Silent Patches

Hey all. I'm about to head off to RSAC 2022, but I wanted to jot down some thoughts I've had lately on a particularly squirrelly issue that comes up occasionally in coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD) — the issue of silent patches, and how they tend to help focused attackers and harm IT protectors.

In the bad old days, most major software vendors were rather notorious for sweeping vulnerability reports under the rug. They made it difficult for legitimate researchers to report vulnerabilities, often by accident, occasionally on purpose. Researchers would report bugs, and those reports would fester in unobserved space, then suddenly the proof-of-concept exploit wouldn't work any more. This was (and is) the standard silent patching model. No credit, no explanation, no CVE ID, nothing.

The justification for this approach seems pretty sensible, though. Why would a vendor go out of their way to explain what a security fix does? After all, if you know how the patch works, then you have a pretty good guess at the root cause of the vulnerability and, therefore, how the exploit works. So, by publicizing these patch details, you're effectively leading attackers to the goods, based on your own documentation. Not cool, right?

So, the natural conclusion is that by limiting the technical details of a given vulnerability to merely the patch contents, and by withholding those details explained in plan languages and proof-of-concept exploit code and screenshots and videos and all the rest, you are limiting the general knowledge pool of people who actually understand the vulnerability and how to exploit it.

Unpacking the silent patch

This sounds like a great plan, but there's a catch. When a software company releases a patch for software, in nearly all cases, they're not using exotic packers, they're not employing anti-forensics, and even if the patch data is encrypted and obfuscated, at some point it's got to modify the code on the running software — which means that it's all available to anyone who has a running instance of the patched software and knows how to use a debugger and a disassembler. And who uses debuggers to inspect the effects of patches? Exploit developers, pretty much exclusively.

Knowing this, let's modify the expectations of the silent patch strategy: When you silently patch, you are intending to limit knowledge of the patched vulnerability to skilled exploit devs.

It's still true that you're excluding the casual attacker (or "script kiddie," in the common parlance), and that's great and desirable. However, you're also excluding a huge population of IT protectors: penetration testers who are paid to write and run exploits to test defenses leap to mind, in addition to the folks who write and deploy defensive technologies like vulnerability management, intrusion detection and prevention, incident detection, and all the rest. You also exclude tech journalists, academics, and policy makers who want to understand and communicate the nature of software vulnerabilities, but who aren't likely to bust out a disassembler.

Most significantly, you're excluding the most important audience for your patch: the regular IT administrators and managers who need to sort out the incoming flow of patches based on some risk and severity criteria and make the call for downtime and update scheduling based on that criteria. Not all vulnerabilities are equal, and while protectors want to get around to all of them, they need to figure out which ones to apply today and which ones can wait for the next maintenance cycle.

By the way, it's true that some of these IT professionals also have the capability to reverse-engineer your patch. In practice, people who are only interested in keeping IT humming never, ever reverse patches to see if they're worth applying. It's way too complicated and time-consuming. I've never seen a case where this is part of the decision-making process to patch now or later.

Don’t leave defenders in the dark

So now, let's reexamine the case for silent patching yet again: When you silently patch, you are communicating vulnerability details, exclusively, to skilled, criminal attackers who are specifically targeting your product, while leaving your customers in the dark. You are intentionally withholding information from casual attackers, secondary defenders, and your customers and users who are desperate to make informed security engineering decisions involving your product or project. Oh, and let's not forget, you're also limiting knowledge about these fixed vulnerabilities from future employees and contributors, who very well might re-introduce the same or similar bugs in your product down the road. After all, the details are secret, even from future-you.

All this is to say, silent patching is tantamount to full disclosure to a very small audience who mostly want to hurt you and your users. Fully documented patches reach the much, much larger audience of people, present and future, who want to help you and your users. While it's true that you are also offering educational opportunities to casual attackers along the way, I believe the global population of casual attackers is much, much smaller than your legitimate users and all the secondary and tertiary defenders who are on your side.

So, next time a vulnerability researcher states their intention of publishing details about their reported (and now patched) vulnerability, try to examine your urge to keep those details under wraps, and maybe even encourage them to be honest and transparent with their findings. The alternative is to build up the operational capabilities of the true criminal and espionage enterprises while degrading the decision-making power of IT protectors.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Get the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.


Cybersecurity awareness, protection, and prevention is all-encompassing. In addition to implementing the right tools and resources, and hiring skilled professionals with the right cybersecurity education and experience, organizations should be aware of the latest CVEs. What Is a CVE? The acronym “CVE” stands for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, and it refers to known computer security […]… Read More

The post Top CVE Trends — And What You Can Do About Them appeared first on The State of Security.

Have you ever dined in a restaurant with a police officer?  When choosing a table, or seating location, law enforcement professionals will often choose the seat that positions them with their back to the wall.  This plays out quite humorously when a group of law enforcement professionals dine together, all racing toward that coveted “protected” […]… Read More

The post Adding visibility to the invisible: securing your automated systems appeared first on The State of Security.

Maximize Your VM Investment: Fix Vulnerabilities Faster With Automox + Rapid7

The Rapid7 InsightConnect Extension library is getting bigger! We’ve teamed up with IT operations platform, Automox, to release a new plugin and technology alliance that closes the aperture of attack for vulnerability findings and automates remediation. Using the Automox Plugin for Rapid7 InsightConnect in conjunction with InsightVM, customers are able to:

  • Automate discovery-to-remediation of vulnerability findings
  • Query Automox device details via Slack or Microsoft Teams

Getting started with Automox within InsightConnect

Automox is an IT Operations platform that fully automates the process of endpoint management across Windows, macOS, Linux, and third-party software — including Adobe, Java, Firefox, Chrome, and Windows.

The Automox InsightConnect Plugin allows mutual customers of Rapid7 and Automox to expand their capabilities between products, ultimately streamlining cyber security outcomes and operational effectiveness. Seamlessly transition CVE-based vulnerability findings through discovery to remediation, and perform device queries without needing to leave Slack or Microsoft Teams!

Example workflows you can start leveraging now with the Automox Plugin

  • Generate Rapid7 InsightVM Report and Upload to Automox Vulnerability Sync: An example workflow that leverages threat context for assets and prioritizes them for remediation. An InsightVM report is automatically generated and uploaded using Automox’s Vulnerability Sync for easy remediation, saving internal teams precious time and effort in managing  critically emerging threats – from start to finish.
  • Automox Device Lookup from Microsoft Teams: An example workflow that lets a user query a device in Automox directly from Microsoft Teams.
  • Automox Device Lookup from Slack: An example workflow that lets a user query a device in Automox directly from Slack.

For more information or to start using this plugin, access and install the Automox Plugin for Rapid7 InsightConnect through the Rapid7 Extension Library.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Get the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.


Patch Tuesday - May 2022

This month is par for the course in terms of both number and severity of vulnerabilities being patched by Microsoft. That means there’s plenty of work to be done by system and network administrators, as usual.

There is one 0-day this month: CVE-2022-26925, a Spoofing vulnerability in the Windows Local Security Authority (LSA) subsystem, which allows attackers able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack to force domain controllers to authenticate to the attacker using NTLM authentication. This is very bad news when used in conjunction with an NTLM relay attack, potentially leading to remote code execution (RCE). This bug affects all supported versions of Windows, but Domain Controllers should be patched on a priority basis before updating other servers.

Two other CVEs were also publicly disclosed before today’s releases, though they have not yet been seen exploited in the wild. CVE-2022-22713 is a denial-of-service vulnerability that affects Hyper-V servers running relatively recent versions of Windows (20H2 and later). CVE-2022-29972 is a Critical RCE that affects the Amazon Redshift ODBC driver used by Microsoft’s Self-hosted Integration Runtime (a client agent that enables on-premises data sources to exchange data with cloud services such as Azure Data Factory and Azure Synapse Pipelines). This vulnerability also prompted Microsoft to publish their first guidance-based advisory of the year, ADV220001, indicating their plans to strengthen tenant isolation in their cloud services without actually providing any specific details or actions to be taken by customers.

All told, 74 CVEs were fixed this month, the vast majority of which affect functionality within the Windows operating system. Other notable vulnerabilities include CVE-2022-21972 and CVE-2022-23270, critical RCEs in the Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol. Exploitation requires attackers to win a race condition, which increases the complexity, but if you have any RAS servers in your environment, patch sooner rather than later.

CVE-2022-26937 carries a CVSSv3 score of 9.8 and affects services using the Windows Network File System (NFS). This can be mitigated by disabling NFSV2 and NFSV3 on the server; however, this may cause compatibility issues, and upgrading is highly recommended.

CVE-2022-22017 is yet another client-side Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) vulnerability. While not as worrisome as when an RCE affects RDP servers, if a user can be enticed to connect to a malicious RDP server via social engineering tactics, an attacker will gain RCE on their system.

Sharepoint Server administrators should be aware of CVE-2022-29108, a post-authentication RCE fixed today. Exchange admins have CVE-2022-21978 to worry about, which could allow an attacker with elevated privileges on an Exchange server to gain the rights of a Domain Administrator.

A host of Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) vulnerabilities were also addressed this month, including CVE-2022-22012 and CVE-2022-29130 – both RCEs that, thankfully, are only exploitable if the MaxReceiveBuffer LDAP policy is set to a value higher than the default value.

Although there are no browser vulnerabilities this month, two RCEs affecting Excel (CVE-2022-29109 and CVE-2022-29110) and one Security Feature Bypass affecting Office (CVE-2022-29107) mean there is still some endpoint application patching to do.

Summary charts

Patch Tuesday - May 2022
Patch Tuesday - May 2022
Patch Tuesday - May 2022
Patch Tuesday - May 2022

Summary tables

Azure vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29972 Insight Software: CVE-2022-29972 Magnitude Simba Amazon Redshift ODBC Driver No Yes N/A Yes

Developer Tools vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29148 Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-30129 Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-23267 .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-29117 .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-29145 .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 7.5 No
CVE-2022-30130 .NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 3.3 No

ESU Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-26935 Windows WLAN AutoConfig Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29121 Windows WLAN AutoConfig Service Denial of Service Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26936 Windows Server Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22015 Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29103 Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-29132 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-26937 Windows Network File System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26925 Windows LSA Spoofing Vulnerability Yes Yes 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22012 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29130 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 9.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22013 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 No
CVE-2022-22014 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 No
CVE-2022-29128 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29129 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29137 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 No
CVE-2022-29139 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29141 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 No
CVE-2022-26931 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.5 Yes
CVE-2022-26934 Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29112 Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22011 Windows Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29115 Windows Fax Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26926 Windows Address Book Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-22019 Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-21972 Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-23270 Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.1 Yes
CVE-2022-29105 Microsoft Windows Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-29127 BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.2 Yes

Exchange Server vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-21978 Microsoft Exchange Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.2 Yes

Microsoft Office vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-29108 Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29107 Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29109 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29110 Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes

Windows vulnerabilities

CVE Title Exploited? Publicly disclosed? CVSSv3 base score Has FAQ?
CVE-2022-26930 Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29125 Windows Push Notifications Apps Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29114 Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29140 Windows Print Spooler Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29104 Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 No
CVE-2022-22016 Windows PlayToManager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26933 Windows NTFS Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29131 Windows LDAP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29116 Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 4.7 Yes
CVE-2022-29133 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29142 Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29106 Windows Hyper-V Shared Virtual Disk Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-24466 Windows Hyper-V Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 4.1 Yes
CVE-2022-22713 Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability No Yes 5.6 Yes
CVE-2022-26927 Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29102 Windows Failover Cluster Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 5.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29113 Windows Digital Media Receiver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7.8 Yes
CVE-2022-29134 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29120 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29122 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29123 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-29138 Windows Clustered Shared Volume Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29135 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29150 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29151 Windows Cluster Shared Volume (CSV) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26913 Windows Authentication Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability No No 7.4 Yes
CVE-2022-23279 Windows ALPC Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-29126 Tablet Windows User Interface Application Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26932 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.2 Yes
CVE-2022-26938 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26939 Storage Spaces Direct Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 7 Yes
CVE-2022-26940 Remote Desktop Protocol Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability No No 6.5 Yes
CVE-2022-22017 Remote Desktop Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes
CVE-2022-26923 Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability No No 8.8 Yes

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Get the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.


How to Strategically Scale Vendor Management and Supply Chain Security

This post is co-authored by Collin Huber

Recent security events — particularly the threat actor activity from the Lapsu$ group, Spring4Shell, and various new supply-chain attacks — have the security community on high alert. Security professionals and network defenders around the world are wondering what we can do to make the organizations we serve less likely to be featured in an article as the most recently compromised company.

In this post, we’ll articulate some simple changes we can all make in the near future to provide more impactful security guidance and controls to decrease risk in our environments.

Maintain good cyber hygiene

Here are some basic steps that organizations can take to ensure their security posture is in good health and risks are at a manageable level.

1.  Review privileged user activity for anomalies

Take this opportunity to review logs of privileged user activity. Additionally, review instances of changed passwords, as well as any other unexpected activity. Interview the end user to help determine the authenticity of the change. Take into consideration the types of endpoints used across your network, as well as expected actions or any changes to privileges (e.g. privilege escalation).

2. Enforce use of multifactor authentication

Has multifactor authentication (MFA) deployment stalled at your firm? This is an excellent opportunity to revisit deployment of these initiatives. Use of MFA reduces the potential for compromise in a significant number of instances. There are several options for deployment of MFA. Hardware-based MFA methods, such as FIDO tokens, are typically the strongest, and numerous options offer user-friendly ways to use MFA — for example, from a smartphone. Ensure that employees and third parties are trained not to accept unexpected prompts to approve a connection.

3. Understand vendor risks

Does your acquisition process consider the security posture of the vendor in question? Based on the use case for the vendor and the business need, consider the security controls you require to maintain the integrity of your environment. Additionally, review available security reports to identify security controls to investigate further. If a security incident has occurred, consider the mitigating controls that were missing for that vendor. Depending on the response of that vendor and their ability to implement those security controls, determine if this should influence purchase decisions or contract renewal.      

4. Review monitoring and alerts

Review system logs for other critical systems, including those with high volumes of data. Consider reviewing systems that may not store, process, or transmit sensitive data but could have considerable vulnerabilities. Depending on the characteristics of these systems and their mitigating controls, it may be appropriate to prioritize patching, implement additional mitigating controls, and even consider additional alerting.

Always make sure to act as soon as you can. It’s better to enact incident response (IR) plans and de-escalate than not to.

Build a more secure supply chain

Risks are inherent in the software supply chain, but there are some strategies that can help you ensure your vendors are as secure as possible. Here are three key concepts to consider implementing.

1. Enumerate edge connection points between internal and vendor environments

Every organization has ingress and egress points with various external applications and service providers. When new services or vendors are procured, access control lists (ACLs) are updated to accommodate the new data streams — which presents an opportunity to record simple commands for shutting those streams down in the event of a vendor compromise.

Early stages of an incident are often daunting, frustrating, and confusing for all parties involved. Empowering information security (IS) and information technology (IT) teams to have these commands ahead of time decreases the guesswork that needs to be done to create them when an event occurs. This frees up resources to perform other critical elements of your IR plan as appropriate.

One of the most critical elements of incident response is containment. Many vendors will immediately disable external connections when an attack is discovered, but relying on an external party to act in the best interest of your organization is a challenging position for any security professional. If your organization has a list of external connections open to the impacted vendor, creating templates or files to easily cut and paste commands to cut off the connection is an easy step in the planning phase of incident response. These commands can be approved for dispatch by senior leadership and immediately put in place to ensure whatever nefarious behavior occurring on the vendor’s network cannot pass into your environment.

An additional benefit of enumerating and memorializing these commands enables teams to practice them or review them during annual updates of the IRP or tabletop exercises. If your organization does not have this information prepared right now, you have a great opportunity to collaborate with your IS and IT teams to improve your preparedness for a vendor compromise.

Vendor compromises can result in service outages which may have an operational impact on your organization. When your organization is considering ways to mitigate potential risks associated with outages and other supply chain issues, review your business continuity plan to ensure it has the appropriate coverage and provides right-sized guidance for resiliency. It may not make business sense to have alternatives for every system or process, so memorialize accepted risks in a Plan of Action and Milestones (POAM) and/or your Risk Register to record your rationale and demonstrate due diligence.

2. Maintain a vendor inventory with key POCs and SLAs

Having a centralized repository of vendors with key points of contact (POCs) for the account and service-level agreements (SLAs) relevant to the business relationship is an invaluable asset in the event of a breach or attack. The repository enables rapid communication with the appropriate parties at the vendor to open and maintain a clear line of communication, so you can share updates and get critical questions answered in a timely fashion. Having SLAs related to system downtime and system support is also instrumental to ensure the vendor is furnishing the agreed-upon services as promised.

3. Prepare templates to communicate to customers and other appropriate parties

Finally, set up templates for communications about what your team is doing to protect the environment and answer any high-level questions in the event of a security incident. For these documents, it is best to work with legal departments and senior leadership to ensure the amount of information provided and the manner in which it is disclosed is appropriate.

  • Internal communication: Have a formatted memo to easily address some key elements of what is occurring to keep staff apprised of the situation. You may want to include remarks indicating an investigation is underway, your internal environment is being monitored, relevant impacts staff may see, who to contact if external parties have questions, and reiterate how to report unusual device behavior to your HelpDesk or security team.
  • External communication: Communication for the press regarding the investigation or severity of the breach as appropriate.
  • Regulatory notices: Work with legal teams to templatize regulatory notifications to ensure the right data is easily provided by technical teams to be shared in an easy-to-update format.

Complex software supply chains introduce a wide range of vulnerabilities into our environments – but with these strategic steps in place, you can limit the impacts of security incidents and keep risk to a minimum in your third-party vendor relationships.

Additional reading:

NEVER MISS A BLOG

Get the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.


Organizations are always concerned with improving efficiencies to make business flow smoother. Some of the biggest inefficiencies in any business revolve around time wasted on operational tasks. Whether it is a stale accounting process, or something as trivial as routing phone calls to the proper department, saving time by improving a process can mean more profits, which […]… Read More

The post Improve your patching efficiency with Tripwire State Analyzer appeared first on The State of Security.