101
Synology hurries out patches for zero-days exploited at Pwn2Own
(www.bleepingcomputer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
101 points (99.0% liked)
Selfhosted
40173 readers
712 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Was it that the talk was a last minute change (replacing another scheduled talk) so the responsible disclosure was made in a rush without giving synology more time to provide the patch before the talk was presented?
If so, who decided it was a good idea to present something regarding a vulnerability without the fix being available yet?
There's a give-and-take here, where disclosing the vulnerability should be done soon enough to be responsible to affected users, but not so late that it's seen as pandering to the vendor.
We've already seen how much vendors drag their feet when they are given time to fix a vuln before the disclosure, and almost all the major vendors have tried to pull this move where they keep delaying fix unless it becomes public.
Synology hasn't been very reactive to fixing CVEs unless they're very public. One nasty vulnerability in the old DSM 6 was found at a hackathon by a researcher (I'll edit and post the number later), but the fix wasn't included in the main update stream, you had to go get the patch manually and apply it.
Vendors must have their feet held to the fire on vulns, or they don't bother doing anything.
I hear you, but how much time was Synology given? If it was no time at all (which it seems is what happened here??), that does not even give Synology a chance and that's what I'm concerned with. If they get a month (give or take), then sure, disclose it and too bad for them if they don't have a fix, they should have taken it more seriously, but I'm wondering about how much time they were even given in this case.
Was that the file transfer allowed for remote code execution one? That'd be the one that sticks out to me. 3 or 4 years ago iirc?
Edit: CVE-2021-27649 is the one that came to mind, not sure if that's the one you're referring to.
To be somewhat fair, if you're exposing these devices directly to the internet without even basic auth in front of them, you're a damn fool.
Synology devices all have authentication enabled by default.
Basic auth keeps the actual login page from being accessed. Even having a login page accessible can lead to plenty of issues depending on your web framework. If you're doing this, you should be worried. If you don't even know what basic auth is, you should be really worried.