Software Engineering Institute | Carnegie Mellon University

SEI Insights

CERT/CC Blog

Vulnerability Insights

Ever want to use a Snort-like rule with SiLK or Analysis Pipeline to find text within packets? Timur Snoke and I were recently discussing how we could do this and realized that while neither SiLK nor Analysis Pipeline themselves do packet inspection, YAF can be used to create an application label that can be used in analyses in both SiLK and Pipeline (field 29, application). This post outlines the steps required and provides an example.

Hi. This is Angela Horneman of the SEI's Situational Awareness team. I've generated service specific network flows to use as baseline examples for network analysis and am sharing them since others may find them helpful.

We have been looking at implementing Network Profiling in Analysis Pipeline to automatically generate lists of active servers and to alert when new IPs start acting as servers. As part of this initiative, we started looking at alternatives to using flags in the identification process, since not all collection methods capture TCP flag data. In this process, I looked for example network flows for verified services.

Recently, SuperFish and PrivDog have received some attention because of the risks that they both introduced to customers because of implementation flaws. Looking closer into these types of applications with my trusty CERT Tapioca VM at hand, I've come to realize a few things.

In this blog post, I will explain

  1. The capabilities of SSL and TLS are not well understood by many.
  2. SSL inspection is much more widespread than I suspected.
  3. Many applications that perform SSL inspection have flaws that put users at increased risk.
  4. Even if SSL inspection were performed at least as well as the browsers do, the risk introduced to users is not zero.

Hi, it's Allen. In addition to building fuzzers to find vulnerabilities (and thinking about adding some concurrency features to BFF in the process), I've been doing some work in the area of cybersecurity information sharing and the ways it can succeed or fail. In both my vulnerability discovery and cybersecurity information sharing work, I've found that I often learn the most by examining the failures -- in part because the successes are often just cases that could have failed, but didn't.

In this blog post I focus on an area of cybersecurity information sharing that's considerably less well understood than incident reporting, malware analysis, or indicator sharing. I'm talking about coordinated vulnerability disclosure and why it's hard.

Hello, this is Jonathan Spring with my colleague Leigh Metcalf. Today, we're releasing a CERT/CC whitepaper on our investigations into domain name parking. The title summarizes our findings neatly: "Domain Parking: Not as Malicious as Expected."

First, let's review some definitions to make sure we're all on the same page. Domain parking is the practice of assigning a nonsense location to a domain when it is not in use to keep it ready for "live" use. When a domain is "parked" on an IP address, the IP address to which the domain resolves is inactive or otherwise not controlled by the same entity that controls the domain.