company logo

Product

Our Product

We are Reshaping the way Developers find and fix vulnerabilities before they get exploited.

Solutions

By Industry

BFSI

Healthcare

Education

IT & Telecom

Government

By Role

CISO/CTO

DevOps Engineer

Resources

Resource Library

Get actionable insight straight from our threat Intel lab to keep you informed about the ever-changing Threat landscape.

Subscribe to Our Weekly Threat Digest

Company

Contact Us

Have queries, feedback or prospects? Get in touch and we shall be with you shortly.

loading..
loading..
loading..
Loading...

Git

Misconfig

loading..
loading..
loading..

EMERALDWHALE Git Config Breach Exposes 15,000 Credentials; 10,000 Repos Cloned

EMERALDWHALE breach exploits Git config misconfigurations, exposing 15,000 credentials and cloning 10,000 private repositories

02-Nov-2024
6 min read

Related Articles

loading..

Zero-Click

NAS

Zero Day

Explore how Synology's rapid response to zero-day vulnerabilities sets a new cyb...

The recent zero-day vulnerabilities discovered at Pwn2Own Ireland 2024 highlight Synology’s swift handling of cybersecurity threats, offering a valuable case study in rapid response and the evolution of corporate responsibility in an era of increasingly sophisticated cyber threats. #### From Vulnerability to Accountability It’s easy to see the Synology zero-day incident as just another security patch story. However, what’s more thought-provoking is how it reveals a broader narrative about the need for a shift in how vendors perceive their role in safeguarding users. Midnight Blue's discovery of the RISK:STATION vulnerability (CVE-2024-10443) speaks volumes about the potential of collaborative efforts between security researchers and vendors. Synology’s accelerated response—delivering patches for BeeStation and DiskStation within a remarkable 48 hours—demonstrates a newfound urgency that goes beyond compliance. It embodies the fact that companies must now see themselves as active custodians of user safety. The stakes here are stark. A critical zero-click vulnerability, such as RISK:STATION, is akin to a digital wildfire waiting to happen—especially when millions of network-attached storage (NAS) devices, used both at home and across enterprises, are exposed to the internet. Midnight Blue’s prompt communication and Synology’s swift release of patches turned what could have been a devastating incident into a teachable moment for all companies grappling with vulnerabilities: timing and transparency can be the difference between chaos and control. #### Beyond Patches: The Human Element in Cybersecurity The technical details of Synology's patched vulnerabilities, while crucial, mask a deeper layer of significance—the human factor. Vulnerabilities, particularly those in ubiquitous devices like NAS systems, hold very tangible implications for everyday users. The reality that these vulnerabilities were found not just in common homes, but within the infrastructure of police departments, critical infrastructure contractors, and more, underscores the very real human cost of security gaps. Midnight Blue's subsequent media reach-out to emphasize mitigative actions reflects an essential, yet often overlooked, dimension of cybersecurity: informing and empowering the users themselves. The narrative here is not just about how swiftly a vendor can release a patch, but also about how well users can be educated to take immediate action. For many, these patches aren't applied automatically, necessitating awareness, engagement, and proactive defense on the part of device owners. By framing the dissemination of patch information as a top priority, Synology and Midnight Blue have taken a step toward bridging the gap between tech companies and their customers in cybersecurity literacy. #### Toward a Secure Digital Future The hurried patch releases by Synology and QNAP in the wake of Pwn2Own’s discoveries set a new standard in timeliness, but they also illustrate the changing relationship between security research and product safety. Vendors, previously accustomed to the luxury of taking up to 90 days to address reported vulnerabilities, must now operate in an accelerated environment where rapid exploitation is a clear and present danger. The story of RISK:STATION is a stark reminder that no connected device is immune, and every link in the chain of connectivity needs vigilance. The Internet of Things, of which NAS devices are a part, is only as strong as its weakest point, and often that point is the delay between vulnerability disclosure and patch application. Synology's response demonstrates how shrinking this gap must be at the forefront of vendor priorities. The challenge lies not just in the release of patches, but also in how swiftly and effectively they reach every vulnerable system. As NAS devices increasingly serve as repositories for sensitive information—not just for enterprises but for individuals who trust them with their family photos and personal data—stories like this should serve as a clarion call to both users and vendors. For vendors, it’s about recognizing the gravity of their role in user protection. For users, it’s a reminder to be vigilant, apply patches promptly, and reconsider how they expose their devices online. The Synology incident is, in many ways, a microcosm of what’s to come as our digital ecosystems expand. It’s a reminder that cybersecurity is as much about the processes of discovery and patching as it is about communication, education, and the fundamental responsibility of every player in the digital space to take security as seriously as possible. In a hyper-connected age, vigilance is no longer optional—it’s imperative.

loading..   02-Nov-2024
loading..   4 min read
loading..

AI

Azure

Microsoft

Azure AI vulnerability reveals flaws in content moderation guardrails, raising q...

In February 2024, Mindgard disclosed a striking vulnerability: Microsoft’s Azure AI Content Safety Service, which many depend on to ensure responsible AI behavior, had two glaring weaknesses. These vulnerabilities allowed sophisticated attackers to slip through the well-advertised “guardrails,” bypassing established mechanisms to keep harmful content at bay. At first glance, this might seem like a run-of-the-mill vulnerability disclosure, but let’s dive into why this breach underscores a far deeper challenge for AI security and our collective perception of safety. ### **Illusion of Impenetrability** Microsoft’s Azure AI Content Safety service, promoted as a safeguard for AI content, comprises AI Text Moderation and Prompt Shield. AI Text Moderation is responsible for blocking harmful content like hate speech, while Prompt Shield aims to protect AI models against manipulative attacks such as jailbreaks and prompt injection. These mechanisms are supposed to ensure that harmful, inappropriate, or manipulated content cannot make its way into the output generated by AI systems. However, the discovery by Mindgard has exposed a stark truth: while AI guardrails sound reliable, they often exist in a precarious balance between effectiveness and exploitation. The vulnerabilities revolved around ‘Character Injection’ and ‘Adversarial ML Evasion’ techniques—both methods designed to exploit blind spots in detection mechanisms. This insight changes our perception of what it means to create guardrails around AI. The once-assumed invincibility of AI moderation tools begins to crumble when we realize the ease with which creative adversaries can identify loopholes, rendering those safety nets insufficient. ### **Attack Techniques: Exploiting Blind Spots** The first evasion technique—Character Injection—leverages imperceptible character modifications that result in evading detection while retaining a message’s meaning to human readers. For instance, attackers used variations like diacritical marks (‘a’ to ‘á’), homoglyphs (using ‘O’ instead of ‘0’), and zero-width spaces. These changes, while trivial to the human eye, wreaked havoc on AI classifiers trained on natural text, achieving a staggering evasion success rate ranging from 83% to 100%. Adversarial ML evasion techniques took a different approach, by modifying the context at the word level, introducing small changes that disoriented the AI system's understanding—undermining content moderation by up to 58%. These attacks highlight how machine learning models inherently struggle to address ambiguities that are easily recognized by humans. This challenge reveals a critical limitation in the effectiveness of guardrails—they often operate on shallow semantics without robust context understanding, making them susceptible to surprisingly simple manipulations. ### **Undermining Trust and AI Safety Narratives** What does this mean for us as individuals, corporations, and societies increasingly adopting AI into our daily lives? First and foremost, it serves as a powerful reminder that AI moderation is neither flawless nor immune to adversarial ingenuity. This incident undermines trust in AI systems' capability to act autonomously and ethically without supervision, and it questions the scalability of relying purely on technical barriers for safety. The reliability of content moderation and ethical AI relies on maintaining impenetrable defenses—an illusion shattered when attackers identify and exploit vulnerabilities. The consequences of bypassing Azure’s safeguards extend beyond just inappropriate content slipping through. The system’s incapacity to identify these sophisticated attacks means sensitive and harmful content can infiltrate the AI’s decision-making process, generate malicious responses, or even propagate misinformation. For instance, with Prompt Shield’s evasion, adversaries could manipulate a model into breaking ethical guidelines, potentially resulting in dangerous real-world consequences, from influencing public discourse to committing fraud. Such incidents compel us to rethink what true “safety” means in an AI context. ### **Guardrails as an Ongoing Process, Not a Product** The vulnerabilities revealed by Mindgard illustrate a critical lesson—guardrails are not one-time fixes. They require an iterative, adaptive approach to respond to the ever-evolving tactics of adversarial actors. This raises a provocative point: are AI safety guardrails sufficient as they stand today? Or do we need to look beyond traditional reactive security measures, adopting more proactive and resilient approaches that learn and evolve just as the attackers do? This calls for a paradigm shift in how we approach the AI safety narrative. Instead of presenting these solutions as definitive safety barriers, the focus should be on transparency, adaptability, and continual learning. Mitigation strategies, such as embedding context-aware AI, deploying diverse moderation techniques, and conducting consistent red teaming, need to be integrated to create a more robust and resilient AI security architecture. ### **A Shared Responsibility** The onus of securing AI systems doesn’t rest solely on the service providers. Developers, users, and companies integrating AI models into their ecosystems must actively understand the limitations and risks inherent in the tools they use. Supplementary moderation tools, tighter integrations, and human oversight are crucial components for developing truly effective safety mechanisms. It’s easy to read vulnerability disclosures and view them as flaws in someone else’s product. But the reality is that AI vulnerabilities represent weaknesses in our collective ability to control the technology we create. The impact of AI’s failures isn’t limited to a single company or product—the consequences affect people, trust, and societal norms. As we forge ahead, the lessons from these vulnerabilities should drive us to embrace a more nuanced understanding of AI’s limitations. True AI safety isn’t just a feature to be checked off—it’s an ongoing, collaborative pursuit to ensure these tools work for us, not against us.

loading..   02-Nov-2024
loading..   5 min read
loading..

Zero Day

QNAP

QNAP patches a critical zero-day vulnerability in NAS devices post-Pwn2Own 2024 ...

QNAP has addressed a critical zero-day vulnerability exploited by security researchers to hack a TS-464 NAS device during the Pwn2Own Ireland 2024 competition. This vulnerability, designated **CVE-2024-50388**, is rooted in an OS command injection weakness in the HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync software, which serves as QNAP's solution for disaster recovery and data backup. --- #### Overview of the Vulnerability The flaw in question, CVE-2024-50388, was identified in [HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync](https://www.qnap.com/en/software/hybrid-backup-sync) version 25.1.x. The vulnerability poses a significant risk, as it could enable remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on affected devices, potentially gaining unauthorized access. > **QNAP Security Advisory:** > "An OS command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands," QNAP [said](https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-24-41) in a Tuesday security advisory. --- #### Update and Patch Information QNAP has issued a patch in **HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync version 25.1.1.673** and later to address this critical vulnerability. To protect your NAS device from potential exploits, it is essential to ensure your HBS 3 installation is up-to-date. ##### How to Update HBS 3: 1. **Log in to QTS or QuTS Hero** as an administrator. 2. **Open the App Center** and search for "HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync." 3. If an update is available, click on **Update**. Note: If the “Update” button is missing, your HBS 3 is already current. --- #### Exploit Demonstration at Pwn2Own The vulnerability came to light during the **Pwn2Own Ireland 2024** competition, where security researchers Ha The Long and Ha Anh Hoang from Viettel Cyber Security successfully leveraged it to gain [administrative privileges](https://x.com/thezdi/status/1849372314212749751) on QNAP’s TS-464 NAS device. Notably, **Team Viettel** secured victory in the Pwn2Own competition, held over four days and concluded on October 25, 2024. The team won substantial prizes, contributing to a total pool exceeding $1 million, by disclosing over 70 [zero-day vulnerabilities](https://www.secureblink.com/cyber-security-news/80-000-devices-vulnerable-to-qnap-zero-day-vulnerability) across various devices and applications. --- #### Patch Timing and Industry Standard Response QNAP’s response to this zero-day vulnerability is considered swift, with the patch released five days after the exploit was demonstrated. Typically, vendors participating in Pwn2Own are granted a 90-day window to address reported vulnerabilities before the **Zero Day Initiative (ZDI)**, run by Trend Micro, publishes detailed information on the vulnerabilities disclosed during the contest. --- ### Historical Context: QNAP's Vulnerability Challenges QNAP devices have been a frequent target for cyber threats over the years, particularly by ransomware gangs due to the sensitive personal and organizational data they store. Below are some notable historical vulnerabilities and attacks against QNAP devices: 1. **Backdoor Account Removal ([CVE-2021-28799}(https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/QSA-21-13)):** In 2021, QNAP removed a backdoor account in the HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync. This vulnerability was exploited in conjunction with an **[SQL injection vulnerability](https://www.qnap.com/de-de/security-advisory/qsa-21-11) ([CVE-2020-36195](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36195))** in QNAP’s Multimedia Console and Media Streaming Add-On. Attackers used these flaws to deploy **[Qlocker ransomware](https://www.secureblink.com/cyber-security-news/qlocker-resurrected-with-a-new-campaign-in-targeting-qnap-nas-devices-once-again)**, encrypting files on Internet-exposed NAS devices. 2. **eCh0raix Ransomware Attacks (2020-2021):** QNAP NAS devices faced extensive ransomware attacks leveraging known security flaws. In June 2020, QNAP warned users of **[eCh0raix](https://www.secureblink.com/cyber-security-news/qnap-nas-devices-yet-again-victimized-due-to-rise-of-ech0raix) (QNAPCrypt) ransomware**, which exploited vulnerabilities in the Photo Station app. By mid-2021, attackers using eCh0raix reemerged, taking advantage of weak user passwords and unresolved vulnerabilities. 3. **AgeLocker Ransomware Attacks (September 2020):** AgeLocker ransomware targeted NAS devices running outdated Photo Station software versions. This attack highlighted the risks associated with publicly exposed NAS devices that lack regular updates or security patches. QNAP NAS devices continue to be attractive to ransomware groups due to the personal and sensitive nature of the data stored on these systems. Cybercriminals often leverage this data to demand ransoms, knowing that victims may pay to regain access to their critical files. QNAP’s quick response in patching the HBS 3 zero-day vulnerability shows a proactive approach to securing their systems against emerging threats. As NAS devices remain a popular yet viable target for threat actors, keeping such devices updated with the latest security patches often remains non-negotiable for preventing exploitation and minimizing data loss.

loading..   30-Oct-2024
loading..   4 min read