News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NSA Cybersecurity Advisory: Patch Remote Desktop Services... by userbinator on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @09:31PM (#20100767)
In order to increase resilience against this threat while large networks patch and upgrade, there are additional measures that can be taken

I'd say those are the first things that should be done, regardless of the presence of exploits; exposing a port/listening service to the Internet you don't need, especially one that can remotely give complete control to an attacker, is always a bad idea. Fortunately the majority of computers out there are probably behind a NAT, which helps greatly to keep them from being hacked remotely.

Disable remote Desktop Services if they are not required. Disabling unused and unneeded services helps reduce exposure to security vulnerabilities overall and is a best practice even without the BlueKeep threat.

Very good advice --- too bad latest Windows versions have not-so-clearly-described tons of services running by default, many of which phone home in some way, and some of which are nearly impossible to disable...

Re:NSA Cybersecurity Advisory: Patch Remote Desktop Services... by PatrolX on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @10:15PM (#20100964)
It's pretty amazing that there are over 900k accessible vulnerable endpoints sitting there waiting to be attacked. This is why they're freaking out about it.

Source: https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/05/almost-one-million-vulner...

Eventually someone will wormify that vuln in a few weeks or months and it's going to be a big mess when it happens.

Re:NSA Cybersecurity Advisory: Patch Remote Desktop Services... by cm2187 on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:21AM (#20102441)
It’s hard to run a windows server remotely without RDP. Most remote administration tools are terrible. Stupid thing like you can’t update windows using remote powershell (which also takes ages to come online after the machine booted).

Rather than disabling RDP which I think is unrealistic, I think a simple way to increase greatly the security is to set up an IP whitelist. Have a list stored on a secure and reliable location (S3 bucket for instance) and a script running every 5 minutes, looking for changes to that list. If it changed run a simple command to update the remote IP restriction to all the administrative services in the windows firewall.

No solution is bullet proof but this allows you to manage the server remotely with very little inconvenience, without requiring to set up a VPN or an internal network, and goes a long way to reduce the exposure to vulnerabilities and brute force attacks.

I would do the same thing with IPMI.

Re:NSA Cybersecurity Advisory: Patch Remote Desktop Services... by alamortsubite on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @06:31AM (#20102964)
I'm not a sysadmin, but it seems even safer and easier to 1) keep Windows behind NAT, 2) ssh port forward through UFW on a cheap Linux box.
Re:NSA Cybersecurity Advisory: Patch Remote Desktop Services... by cm2187 on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @06:39AM (#20103003)
If you have the luxury to do that, but if you run a VM, or a single box in colocation, or rent a physical server, that may not be an option. My point is introducing an IP whitelist inside the server doesn't require to change the physical set up, nor any current process relying on the server being directly accessible. It's a low cost quick win.
Re:NSA Cybersecurity Advisory: Patch Remote Desktop Services... by crankylinuxuser on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @07:12AM (#20103167)
Even nat won't save you. Most NAT assumes unlimited outbound 0.0.0.0/0 tcp/udp/icmp . Almost all configuration is that permissive.

And I just need 1 packet to puncture.

https://samy.pl/pwnat/

Re:NSA Cybersecurity Advisory: Patch Remote Desktop Services... by userbinator on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @08:14AM (#20103569)
NAT traversal is possible if you happen to be in control of the machines behind the NAT --- that's not very relevant here, since it requires running a special server on the machine you want to exploit (and if you can already do that, i.e. run code on the machine, then there's no point in exploiting RDP...)

The scenario I'm referring to, and the one the article describes, is a remote attacker trying to connect to port 3389 of a machine behind a NAT --- without being able to already access the machine in the first place. In other words: you have a public IP X; there's a machine with private IP Y (which you don't know but may be able to guess easily) behind its NAT. No ports are forwarded. You have no access to the machine. How do you establish a connection to port 3389 (or for that matter, any other listening port) on it?

Re:NSA Cybersecurity Advisory: Patch Remote Desktop Services... by upofadown on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @08:36AM (#20103721)
They probably meant to say that most were behind a firewall. NAT is not any sort of particular protection against anything. Because NAT almost always comes with a firewall there is a tendency to conflate the two things.