Public Exploit Code Released for Citect ODBC Vulnerability
Friday evening a metasploit module was released that will exploit the Citect ODBC vulnerability that Core discovered earlier this year. There isn’t not a whole lot to talk about in relation to the vulnerability itself, the details previously released (along with the patch) were more than enough for any reasonably skilled attacker to create reliable exploit for, but the working code released into metasploit might change things just a bit. More on that in just a second, but first I want to point out that the community has been oddly silent since this was released. This is what I find more than a bit disturbing, as I honestly expected quite a stir once I saw the email come into my inbox, but as of yet the uproar hasn’t come.
There are a lot of reasons why that might be so, and I have my suspicions ranging from responsible parties taking the weekend off to being speechless at the “reckless nature” of the release, to being oblivious to the information being published. I’ll let our readers speculate on that in the comments, but I suspect the last one is most likely, and the second not very likely at all (when was someone in this area speechless about anything?).
For those of you not familiar with metasploit, it’s a framework for developing and delivering exploits, and it is a part of almost every penetration tester’s toolbox having thousands of users. The bar for exploiting this service has been lowered from low to “script kiddy” level, and it looks like they took an interest early. Let’s all remember that correlation does not equal causality, but looking at DShields activity and trends pages, something is going on, and the time looks right. From looking at that information I would wager that if for some reason you have this service reachable from the internet, its already been exploited, and I would start investigating that system immediately.
Author: Daniel Peck
Posted: September 7th, 2008 under Assessment Tools, SCADA Vendor, Vulnerability Disclosure.
Comments: 3
Comments
Comment from Kevin Finisterre
Time: September 8, 2008, 11:25 am
Daniel I am curious to know if you think that this release is any more reckless in nature than the vendors original attempts at downplaying the issue, “reckless abandon” if you will? Where was the bigger disservice?
Comment from Daniel Peck
Time: September 8, 2008, 1:58 pm
Kevin, I guess my sarcasm didn’t come across very well with the reckless nature. As I mentioned in the post with such a simple exploit anyone who actually wanted to attack these systems already had a exploit created within days (hours more likely) of the advisory, and it shouldn’t have affected anyone’s decision to patch or not.
I am completely in agreement on vendors downplaying security issues. Downplaying security issues and other misinformation only hurt their clients, and the market should see that and make corrections for it when it comes time to re-up contracts. Too often vulnerabilities and other issues are looked at through marketing glasses instead of as part of the development process.
Comment from Kevin Finisterre
Time: September 8, 2008, 3:14 pm
I thought that was the case Daniel… just wanted to make sure though. No need to approve this comment. Just letting ya know I saw what ya wrote. Feel free to shoot me an email if ya wanna talk more.
Write a comment