On September 28th it was disclosed by GTSC that there was a possible new zero day being abused in the wild beginning in early August. Although this campaign looked very similar to the previously abused vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange, dubbed ProxyShell at the time, comprising 3 CVEs (CVE-2021-34473, CVE-2021-34523 and CVE-2021-31207) that when combined enabled an adversary to gain remote access to an Exchange PowerShell session that may be abused.
Quantum computing is an emerging technology that, in due time, will enable amazing power for humanity. With good comes bad. Bad actors are likely to harness quantum computing to distrust, steal or cause harm — threatening our global ways of living and working. We must help federal agencies and commercial enterprises to build quantum safety and quantum resilience against a worst-case scenario. Fortunately, the threat is being recognized. On December 21, 2022, the U.S.
Scanning for vulnerabilities is a best practice and a must-have step in your application lifecycle to prevent security attacks. It is also important where this step is performed, but why? Let’s dig into the details of vulnerability scanning with Sysdig.
KSMBD, as defined by the kernel documentation1, is a linux kernel server which implements SMB3 protocol in kernel space for sharing files over network. It was introduced in kernel version ‘v5.15-rc1’ so it’s still relatively new. Most distributions do not have KSMBD compiled into the kernel or enabled by default. Recently, another vulnerability (ZDI-22-16902) was discovered in KSMBD, which allowed for unauthenticated remote code execution in the kernel context.
We’re excited to announce a new partnership to bring Snyk security insights to ServiceNow workflows. The integration between Snyk Open Source and ServiceNow Application Vulnerability Response, the first of its kind, gives application security teams visibility into vulnerabilities in open source dependencies to provide a complete view of an organization’s application security posture.
Established in 2006, CREST, or Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers is a non-profit membership body. It aims to vet both cybersecurity-providing organizations and security-testing individuals on their capacities, processes, and the standard of services provided. One of the accreditations provided by CREST is vulnerability assessments provided by companies. They are then differentiated as CREST vulnerability assessments.
If you’ve been in the realm of penetration (“pen”) testing in any capacity for any length of time, you’ve probably experienced the conversations around inconsistent pen testing results across teams or vendors. This isn’t anything new in the pen testing world. The conversations probably ranged from friendly internal team banter to more serious discussions with external vendors on pen testing program success metrics. Is this a case of mistaken identity?