Mailing List Archive

General: Plugins Reporting Unrelated Historic Information
Hello All,

I've noticed for some plugins that only report on the existence of
a service also include unrelated historical vulnerability
information [1]. This is usually in the form of CVE references to
specific vulnerabilities and/or generic wording about the spotty
history of the service. This is not consistently done, though,
through all plugins. It is usually done on services that have not
had a bunch of issues or are more esoteric in nature (e.g. UDP
inetd services such as qotd, echo, chargen).

I disagree with the usage of CVE entries and harsh wording if all
that is being checked is the existence of a service. Imagine a
plugin that was kept up-to-date and listed all the OpenSSL, Apache,
or Microsoft RPC CVE entries! It does not, in my opinion, provide
useful information and should be removed. It only seems to warn
people that have no idea what the service does and scares them into
disabling it. It logically does not matter what the history of the
service is - if it is superfluous, disable the service.

If I contribute patches removing this, would they be likely
committed?

Thanks,

Jon

[1] Example plugins:

Plugin 10213:

The cmsd RPC service is running. This service has a long history of
security holes, so you should really know what you are doing if you
decide to let it run. *** No security hole regarding this program
has been tested, so *** this might be a false positive Solution :
We suggest that you disable this service. Risk factor : High CVE :
CVE-1999-0320, CVE-1999-0696, CVE-2002-0391 BID : 428, 524, 5356

Related CVE entries:

CVE-1999-0320:
SunOS rpc.cmsd allows attackers to obtain root access by
overwriting arbitrary files.

CVE-1999-0696:
Buffer overflow in CDE Calendar Manager Service Daemon (rpc.cmsd)

CVE-2002-0391:
Integer overflow in xdr_array function in RPC servers for operating
systems that use libc, glibc, or other code based on SunRPC
including dietlibc, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary
code by passing a large number of arguments to xdr_array through
RPC services such as rpc.cmsd and dmispd.






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
Re: General: Plugins Reporting Unrelated Historic Information [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 14:15 -0800, Jon Passki wrote:
> If I contribute patches removing this, would they be likely
> committed?

Instead of removing the comments, maybe we could tune the report with
variables from global_settings.inc: report_verbosity or report_paranoia?
For example, the "harsh comment" could be added only if
report_paranoia > 1

Yes? No?
Re: General: Plugins Reporting Unrelated Historic Information [ In reply to ]
--- Michel Arboi <mikhail@nessus.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 14:15 -0800, Jon Passki wrote:
> > If I contribute patches removing this, would they be likely
> > committed?
>
> Instead of removing the comments, maybe we could tune the report
> with
> variables from global_settings.inc: report_verbosity or
> report_paranoia?
> For example, the "harsh comment" could be added only if
> report_paranoia > 1
>
> Yes? No?

That works, too. Do you agree, though, that it's inconsistent to
only focus on a couple services (such as the UDP services) versus
all services? We don't do that with HTTP or FTP services, then why
is it okay with lesser-used services? I'd rather be more worried
if I was assessing a network and came across multiple unused HTTP
services versus echo/udp services, regardless if there was a
vulnerability.

Jon




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: General: Plugins Reporting Unrelated Historic Information [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 07:50 -0800, Jon Passki wrote:
> That works, too. Do you agree, though, that it's inconsistent to
> only focus on a couple services (such as the UDP services) versus
> all services?

Yes.

> We don't do that with HTTP or FTP services

Because we can identify the remote server and give more precise
comments. But I agree that this is not great.
Re: General: Plugins Reporting Unrelated Historic Information [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 07:50:48AM -0800, Jon Passki wrote:
> That works, too. Do you agree, though, that it's inconsistent to
> only focus on a couple services (such as the UDP services) versus
> all services? We don't do that with HTTP or FTP services, then why
> is it okay with lesser-used services? I'd rather be more worried
> if I was assessing a network and came across multiple unused HTTP
> services versus echo/udp services, regardless if there was a
> vulnerability.

The problem is that for some of these esoteric services, the only way to
check for a flaw is to crash the service itself (a suboptimal method),
and sometimes the flaw is not patched at all (ie: sadmin).

I agree that the report should be displayed when paranoia is enabled
only.



-- Renaud