There’s rumours flying around social media that Fortinet have another actively exploited zero day in FortiOS, which hasn’t been assigned a CVE again.
Same cycle - you might want to upgrade to latest release ASAP.
There’s rumours flying around social media that Fortinet have another actively exploited zero day in FortiOS, which hasn’t been assigned a CVE again.
Same cycle - you might want to upgrade to latest release ASAP.
@GossiTheDog wait, another one? This isn't related to the fortiwlm? This is NEW?
@GossiTheDog No it's ok, I didn't really fancy this time off work I'm currently on 🙃
Okay, after some amateur reverse engineering - upgrade your FortiGate firewalls to latest version. What’s a pun for Deep Packet Inspection?
@GossiTheDog Deep InPack(e)t?
Calling this one DerpGate
@GossiTheDog DerpiGate has more of a ring to it no? :-)
@GossiTheDog Derp Pocket Incision?
@GossiTheDog any more info on this please?
As an update to FortiOS thing - fixes are out for all the Fortigate versions except 6.4.x branch which has no fix still.
End of support versions - 6.2 and below - also vulnerable but no fix as EOL.
It looks like fix started in branches almost a year ago and hasn't been documented.
Not terribly exciting and you should probably be eating mince pies instead.
This is similarish to the Fortigate zero day, also being exploited -in case of Fortigate it's a non-management packet which causes FortiOS to run out of memory and enter failopen https://infosec.exchange/@screaminggoat/113722788663656122
Just to widen this out -- I'm aware of a telco which is experiencing denial of service using both vulns, an e-crime group has basically turned up with firewall non-management zero days which is another escalation.
With the Palo-Alto one - if you run the exploit multiple times against a HA pair of Palo-Alto boxes, they both crash and don't reboot. Doesn't matter if you don't present DNSSEC to internet.
@GossiTheDog unless I misread the cve this isnt related to DNSSEC the protocol extension at all. This is just PA checking dns, logging it and dying bc some bad words made it into the logs.
@GossiTheDog yes I think that’s well understood.
But I wouldn’t conflate DNSSec which is a protocol extension and a subset of dns packet types, with a FW doing dns security things. Perhaps it was inadvertent or from a sloppy release, but for clarity general dns security, should not be referred to as dnssec. That will def confuse ppl
If anybody is dealing with the Palo Alto CVE-2024-3393 situation - they've neglected to mention they haven't yet released updates for the different impacted versions, so the temp mitigation is turn off logging in your anti-spyware policies if update isn't out yet.
Also, if you want to know what an impacted box looks like, if you attach a cable to it, it looks like this
Tired: running network gear made a country with a proven track record in tech orgs can afford
Wired: rip and replace it with firewalls where a single bad packet can make a box unbootable because we're processing logs like it's 1994
@GossiTheDog I get that the consumer gear is shite, and built like Swiss cheese, but how many in that price range aren't?
Commercial gear, though, seems fairly rock solid
Palo Alto updated their advisory, the DoS issue occurs on the Advanced Security license too, not just DNS Security license
@GossiTheDog is there such a known issue to fail open a Fortinet Firewall at the moment I have missed?
@GossiTheDog it seems like it ought to be cheaper to just reverse engineer the shit out of the gear to look for issues
A reminder about this thread for those returning from holiday
- if you're using Palo Alto firewalls and have DNS Security enabled on anti-spyware policies (you probably do) upgrade to the latest available release (you're running a supported release, right?) as a single DNS packet traversing the data plane (i.e. none management) causes the firewall to fail and fail to boot.
- if you're using Fortigate firewalls, upgrade to latest release (if on 6.4.15 or below, update to latest 7.x).
Also, since there's still confusion about the Fortigate issue - no, it isn't CVE-XYZ - no CVE is assigned still and there's still no advisory.
The FortiGate issue has an advisory now: https://www.fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-266
And a CVE: CVE-2024-46670
Found by some guys at QI-ANXIN Group
There’s some eye raising stuff in it but anyhoo, patch. You probably already are since the patches were released a while ago.
It doesn’t need management interface access, if you can send IKE packets you can send one which triggers the firewall to consume 90% RAM and fail open some traffic and/or crash.
@GossiTheDog Does somebody have a write-up on this?
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.