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

  • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • jaybone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

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

            • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.)

  • Zirconium@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

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