Useragent is a user agent parser for Node.js. All versions as of time of publication contain one or more regular expressions that are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS).

**Exploitability Metrics**

Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.

Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.

Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.

User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.

**Vulnerable System Impact Metrics**

Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.

Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).

Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.

**Subsequent System Impact Metrics**

Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.

Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).

Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.

GHSA-mgfv-m47x-4wqp: useragent Regular Expression Denial of Service vulnerability

Validate.js provides a declarative way of validating javascript objects. Versions 0.13.1 and prior contain one or more regular expressions that are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). As of time of publication, no known patches are available.

GHSA-rv73-9c8w-jp4c: validate.js Regular Expression Denial of Service vulnerability

Knwl.js is a Javascript library that parses through text for dates, times, phone numbers, emails, places, and more. Versions 1.0.2 and prior contain one or more regular expressions that are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). As of time of publication, no known patches are available.

GHSA-68qg-g787-3rp5: Knwl.js Regular Expression Denial of Service vulnerability

insane is a whitelist-oriented HTML sanitizer. Versions 2.6.2 and prior contain one or more regular expressions that are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). As of time of publication, no known patches are available.

GHSA-w455-mfq9-hf74: insane vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service

CommonRegexJS is a CommonRegex port for JavaScript. All available versions contain one or more regular expressions that are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). As of time of publication, no known patches are available.

GHSA-pmvv-57rg-5g86: CommonRegexJS Regular Expression Denial of Service vulnerability

Foundation is a front-end framework. Versions 6.3.3 and prior contain one or more regular expressions that are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). As of time of publication, it is unknown if any fixes are available.

GHSA-p8pc-3f7w-jr5q: Foundation Regular Expression Denial of Service vulnerability

Nope is a JavaScript validator. Versions 0.11.3 and prior contain one or more regular expressions that are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). This vulnerability is fixed in 0.12.1.

GHSA-3phv-83cj-p8p7: nope-validator Regular Expression Denial of Service vulnerability

Funadmin 5.0.2 has a logical flaw in the Curd one click command deletion function, which can result in a Denial of Service (DOS).

**Logic flaw in Funadmin**

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 25, 2024 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Oct 25, 2024

GHSA-r9v5-q97m-rj5g: Logic flaw in Funadmin

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-8260-03 - Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform release 4.16.18 is now available with updates to packages and images that fix several bugs and add enhancements. Issues addressed include a denial of service vulnerability.

The following advisory data is extracted from:

https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_8260.json

Red Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.

- Packet Storm Staff

====================================================================  
Red Hat Security Advisory

Synopsis:           Important: OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.18 bug fix and security update  
Advisory ID:        RHSA-2024:8260-03  
Product:            Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise  
Advisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:8260  
Issue date:         2024-10-24  
Revision:           03  
CVE Names:          CVE-2024-3727  
====================================================================

Summary: 

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform release 4.16.18 is now available with updates to packages and images that fix several bugs and add enhancements.

This release includes a security update for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.

Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Important. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section.

Description:

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is Red Hat's cloud computing Kubernetes application platform solution designed for on-premise or private cloud deployments.

This advisory contains the container images for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.18. See the following advisory for the RPM packages for this release:

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:8263

Space precludes documenting all of the container images in this advisory. See the following Release Notes documentation, which will be updated shortly for this release, for details about these changes:

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.16/release_notes/ocp-4-16-release-notes.html

Security Fix(es):

* encoding/gob: golang: Calling Decoder.Decode on a message which contains  
deeply nested structures can cause a panic due to stack exhaustion  
(CVE-2024-34156)  
* containers/image: digest type does not guarantee valid type  
(CVE-2024-3727)  
* net/http: Denial of service due to improper 100-continue handling in  
net/http (CVE-2024-24791)  
* jose-go: improper handling of highly compressed data (CVE-2024-28180)  
* go/parser: golang: Calling any of the Parse functions containing deeply  
nested literals can cause a panic/stack exhaustion (CVE-2024-34155)  
* go/build/constraint: golang: Calling Parse on a \"// +build\" build tag  
line with deeply nested expressions can cause a panic due to stack  
exhaustion (CVE-2024-34158)

For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

All OpenShift Container Platform 4.16 users are advised to upgrade to these updated packages and images when they are available in the appropriate release channel. To check for available updates, use the OpenShift CLI (oc) or web console. Instructions for upgrading a cluster are available at https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.16/updating/updating_a_cluster/updating-cluster-cli.html

Solution:

CVEs:

CVE-2024-3727

References:

https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#important  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268854  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274767  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2295310  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310527  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310528  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310529  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-33692  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-33693  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-39415  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41364  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41805  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41904  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-42014  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-42369  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-42420  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-42432  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-42724  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-42933  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-43056  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-43063  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-43104  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-43105  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-43308  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-43433  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-43467

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-8260-03

Renewable energy firms deal with a large cyberattack surface area, given the distributed nature of power generation and more pervasive connectivity.

Source: KanawatTH via Shutterstock

Renewable energy companies lag behind their more traditional peers when it comes to the cybersecurity readiness of their infrastructure, raising concerns that attackers targeting critical infrastructure could find easier prey among "green" energy firms.

In a study of 250 energy companies worldwide, oil and natural-gas firms scored the highest — with the average company scoring a 94, or "A" — while the lowest scores belonged to renewable energy companies, which scored a median of 85, or a "B." Green energy firms tend to have distributed generation infrastructure (such as rooftop solar or wind turbines) and are usually more Internet-connected than traditional energy companies — both attributes that can undermine their defensive posture, says Ryan Sherstobitoff, senior vice president for threat research at SecurityScorecard, the cybersecurity risk firm that conducted the study.

Overall, the attack surfaces between traditional energy infrastructure and renewable energy infrastructure can be quite different, he says.

"Oil and gas have legacy technologies, but these legacy technologies are most likely not Internet-facing," Sherstobitoff says. "Whereas the cybersecurity posture of renewable energy may not necessarily be \[to the level of other\] critical infrastructure itself ... but nonetheless has public-facing portals and other public-facing issues."

The concerns come as the US and other countries invest in green energy infrastructure and scramble to put in place more cybersecurity defenses to protect their critical infrastructure. Nation-state groups have targeted the critical infrastructure of the US and its allies, and while the distributed nature of green energy generation could mitigate widespread outages, their Internet connections represent a weak point, according to the SecurityScorecard report, which was in collaboration with consultancy KPMG.

**Distributed Green Systems Harder to Defend**

Overall, the energy sector did quite well in the survey of firms. Of the 250 organizations on which data was collected, 81% either scored an A or B. Only 8% of energy firms showed signs of compromise in their external infrastructure, but two-thirds of the breaches were connected to third-party partners, SecurityScorecard reported.

Attacks could prevent renewable energy companies from managing their generation sites to disrupting consumers' power, Sherstobitoff says.

"You could imagine disrupting the ability for these renewable energy devices to connect back and phone home, then you have chaos, because then they can't check in, can't get their status," he says. "If \[the infrastructure\] depends on getting a status code in order to function, it needs to connect back ... that's another breaking function."

Already, some green energy infrastructure has fallen prey to attackers. Charging stations for electric vehicles typically require connectivity, which makes them vulnerable to both compromise and disruption. In 2022, pro-Ukrainian hacktivists compromised chargers in Moscow to display messages of support for Ukraine. In 2019, a solar firm could no longer manage its 500 megawatts of wind and solar sites in the western US after a denial-of-service attack targeted an unpatched firewall, the FBI stated in a Private Industry Notification (PIN) in July.

The risk could extend all the way to homeowners, who increasingly have adopted rooftop solar and need to be connected to be able to deliver their solar power and be credited.

"This issue will only become more important as small solar systems continue to grow. When every house is a power plant, every house is a target," Morten Lund, of counsel for Foley & Lardner LLP, wrote in a brief directed at energy companies. "In many ways, the distributed nature of solar energy provides significant protection against catastrophic failures. But without sufficient protection at the project level, this strength quickly becomes a weakness."

**Third-Party Suppliers Cause Concern**

The energy sector is also open to greater third-party risk, with 47% of breaches of energy companies involving a third party, compared with 29% across all industries. In addition, many green energy projects tend to be locally managed or developed by a smaller startup, which could raise risks, especially as the US rushes to adopt more green infrastructure, the FBI stated in its PIN.

"With federal and local legislature advocating for renewable energies, the industry will expand to keep pace, providing more opportunities and targets for malicious cyber actors," the FBI stated.

The US National Strategy for Cyberspace calls out renewable energy as a key industry to defend online. Rich countries tend to have better defenses than poorer economies, as they have better regulations and organizations have more budget to spend on security.

Regulations continue to be the top reason energy firms invest in cybersecurity, with nearly half of companies (49%) citing regulatory requirements among their top three reasons for assigning budget, compared with 38% citing a cybersecurity incident or near miss affecting their company, according to risk management consultancy DNV's "Energy Cyber Priority 2023" report.

"Most renewable sites have not been developed with cybersecurity in mind, but several companies are picking up quickly," says Auke Huistra, DNV Cyber's industrial and operational technology cybersecurity director. "From our engagements, we have seen immature but also mature green energy companies. What we do see is that \[cybersecurity gets\] more and more attention ... driven by incidents in the industry as well as regulations."

**About the Author**

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline Journalism (Online) in 2003 for coverage of the Blaster worm. Crunches numbers on various trends using Python and R. Recent reports include analyses of the shortage in cybersecurity workers and annual vulnerability trends.

Tag

#dos