SWG vulnerabilities
Created: 11 Jan 2013 | 5 comments
Hi Guys,
During scanning with Symantec CCS-VM (Vulnerability Manager), we found following vulnerabilities on Symantec Web Gateway. I believe the Critical Ones are due to the fact that RA (Remote Assistance) is enabled. Would like to hear from expert how these vulnerabilities can be addressed.
| Vulnerability | Severity | Instances |
| Back Orifice Backdoor Installed | Critical | 1 |
| rexec' Remote Execution Service Enabled | Critical | 1 |
| rlogin' Remote Login Service Enabled | Critical | 1 |
| rsh' Remote Shell Service Enabled | Critical | 1 |
| VNC remote control service installed | Critical | 1 |
| X.509 Certificate Subject CN Does Not Match the Entity Name | Severe | 1 |
| Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability | Severe | 1 |
| Database Open Access | Severe | 1 |
| Missing HttpOnly Flag From Cookie | Severe | 2 |
| Missing Secure Flag From SSL Cookie | Severe | 1 |
| TCP Sequence Number Approximation Vulnerability | Severe | 1 |
| Autocomplete enabled for sensitive HTML form fields | Severe | 1 |
| Self-signed TLS/SSL certificate | Severe | 1 |
| Apache httpd mod_imap XSS (CVE-2007-5000) | Severe | 1 |
| Weak Cryptographic Key | Moderate | 1 |
| ICMP timestamp response | Moderate | 1 |
Discussion Filed Under:
Comments 5 Comments • Jump to latest comment
"Thumbs Up" to this thread. I'd also be curious about the results for this...
Were these vulnerablilities discovered on the MGMT or LAN interface (or both?)
http://www.cstl.com/
These are the combined vulnerabilities for both LAN and MGMT interface.
Anybody that's run a pen test against SWG will see results like this. If you raise a support case with Symantec they will address them for you. In our case from two we reported one was a false positive (Nessus assumed a vulnerability due to a reported version number by Symantec had addressed the patch themselves) and the one we did find (actually in the list above) is receiving attention from Symantec and will be addressed in an upcoming release.
Slightly ironic that CCS-VM finds these, I'm due to run that in an environment with SWGs in place so I'll look out for this.
Symantec is currently investigating this issue to determine the validity of these findings. We will provide additional information as soon as we’re able.
Thanks. We will be waiting for Symantec response on this.
Would you like to reply?
Login or Register to post your comment.