Cisco is still hard-coding passwords into its products (www.thestack.technology)
from BrikoX@lemmy.zip to cybersecurity@sh.itjust.works on 28 Oct 08:26
https://lemmy.zip/post/25270855

Static credentials with passwords written into a firewall’s code. What could go wrong?

#cybersecurity

threaded - newest

ryannathans@aussie.zone on 28 Oct 08:42 next collapse

To be fair you need physical access

horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 08:55 collapse

Where does it say that?

jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de on 28 Oct 09:25 collapse

Right in the Security Advisory

allow an unauthenticated, local attacker to access an affected system using static credentials.

Edit: NVM, later it says

The second is using SSH, which is enabled by default on the management interface of the device.

horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 09:29 next collapse

That could be any user logged into the CLI. Cisco is famously a network appliance company and they make admin available over the network. Anyone who can get to the LAN/VLAN these appliances are on can exploit this. So not specifically physical access.

jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de on 28 Oct 09:47 collapse

You are right:

The second is using SSH, which is enabled by default on the management interface of the device. SSH can also be enabled on data interfaces.

Holy fuck.

horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 09:56 next collapse

Yup, that’s Cisco alright

ryannathans@aussie.zone on 28 Oct 10:17 next collapse

Management interface is only available locally

curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Oct 12:12 collapse

The management interface can 100% be put on LAN and often is.

ryannathans@aussie.zone on 28 Oct 20:58 collapse

Okay sure then you’re asking for trouble. You could also configure the word password as your password.

curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Oct 21:11 collapse

I agree, its not something I would do.

Doesn’t change that it happens.

borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Oct 14:48 collapse

You are right:

You should have gone with “correct”.

horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 14:56 collapse

Is that needed or useful criticism?

HA! I totally missed the joke. Well played.

Hawke@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 15:39 collapse

I think it’s more a reference to your username than actual criticism.

borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Oct 16:05 collapse

Yeah, I thought that would land better.

horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world on 29 Oct 00:38 collapse

Oh GEEZ! Sorry, I had a VERY literal day at work today. Completely flew over my head.

borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 02 Nov 18:10 collapse

It’s all good. I’ve been having some of those days for what feels like the past month or two now. Hope work chills out for you!

ryannathans@aussie.zone on 28 Oct 10:17 collapse

The management interface is only available with physical access

jaybone@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 10:41 collapse

Nothing prevents you from putting this on a LAN that can be accessed from over the internet.

jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de on 28 Oct 12:09 next collapse

Even if it’s not directly accessible from the internet on its own, if it’s accessible from an host exposed to the internet then anyone that can compromise a single host can immediately compromise the firewall.

“It’s only exposed to the outdated wordpress server” is effectively the same as being exposed to the internet.

jaybone@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 12:14 collapse

Yeah that’s my point. Even if the manufacturer actually limits the IP config on the mgmt interface to be configured as not routable over the internet, it could intentionally be on a subnet accessible by some kind of ssh jump server or bastion host. (Or in your example, maybe unintentionally via the Wordpress server.)

ryannathans@aussie.zone on 28 Oct 20:59 collapse

Nothing prevents you from making it remotely accessible with the password “password” either

magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org on 28 Oct 11:26 next collapse

Glad I just finished moving my rack over to mikrotik…

sylver_dragon@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 11:58 next collapse

This is a good example of why a zero trust network architecture is important. This attack would require the attacker to be able to SSH to the management interface of the device. Done right, that interface will be on a VLAN which has very limited access (e.g. specific IPs or a jumphost). While that isn’t an impossible hurdle for an attacker to overcome, it’s significantly harder than just popping any box on the network. People make mistakes all the time, and someone on your network is going to fall for a phishing attack or malicious redirect or any number of things. Having that extra layer, before they pop the firewall, gives defenders that much more time to notice, find and evict the attacker.

Also, Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot Cisco?

horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 14:47 collapse

That layered security should not be assumed though, thus the issue with hard coded passwords on a firewall. I’d understand for a downstream managed switch. Not a firewall though…bad form and lazy implementation. In my opinion.

sylver_dragon@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 15:29 collapse

Ya, absolutely. My point was that, we shouldn’t assume that vendors are doing things right all the time. So, it’s important to have those layered defense, because vendors do stupid stuff like this.

Zirconium@lemmy.world on 28 Oct 13:57 collapse

First thought I had was oil. I was like how do you put passwords on oil products?

Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Oct 14:51 collapse

Sounds like a storage medium to add to the Hard drives we don’t want or need list.

moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Oct 15:56 collapse