<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Cutwail/PushDo SMTP Attack Vulnerability Detection in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cutwail-pushdo-smtp-attack-vulnerability-detection/m-p/67533#M39577</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;The best way to communicate on these types of issues with Palo Alto is by opening an official support ticket.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Support will first be able to determine what current signatures are aimed at this vulnerabiliity. &amp;nbsp;This will be fastest if you have the CVE handy.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Assuming there is an approach against the CVE, they will be able to determine if you are correctly configured so that the traffic is reviewed against the existing signature.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Should there not be anything in place now, they can also be your conduit to submit requests for enhancements to the correct team.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2015 11:54:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-11-01T11:54:03Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cutwail/PushDo SMTP Attack Vulnerability Detection</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cutwail-pushdo-smtp-attack-vulnerability-detection/m-p/67531#M39575</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I've recently set up a new PA-100-VM and been closely analysing it along with all of the traffic that goes through it. &amp;nbsp;It is running 7.0.3 along with the latest updates to all definition files (updated nightly).&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In the process of doing this I've determined that the PA is not picking up on a fairly common&amp;nbsp;SMTP attack - that being the Cutwail SMTP auth brute force. &amp;nbsp;There is a bit more info about this here:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://blog.avast.com/2013/06/25/15507/" target="_blank"&gt;https://blog.avast.com/2013/06/25/15507/&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://serverfault.com/questions/667322/email-server-attack-from-telnet" target="_blank"&gt;https://serverfault.com/questions/667322/email-server-attack-from-telnet&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;A machine infected with this worm will attempt to brute force SMTP auth other random machines on the Internet.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The good thing is that all&amp;nbsp;of the attempts involve a very characteristic SMTP EHLO of ylmf-pc. &amp;nbsp;So they are patently&amp;nbsp;obvious to identify.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I've written a custom malware signature that detects this and IP blocks the offending hosts for the maximum 3600s (I would block&amp;nbsp;for longer if this was possible). &amp;nbsp;This works well. &amp;nbsp;Lots of hits and no brute forcing anymore &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":winking_face:"&gt;😉&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The questions I have are:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- Is there a way to submit this to Palo Alto so that this attack is picked up by the threat signatures&amp;nbsp;without me having to write a custom vulnerability sig? &amp;nbsp;I can open a case but I would have thought there were easier ways than this to have this information fed into the system.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- Is there a reason this hasn't been already added? &amp;nbsp;This is a very common vulnerability by all accounts. &amp;nbsp;I haven't tried but I imagine the PA will pick up on the trojan exe's that this worm uses to transmit itself, but as a non-infected user I also want protection from other remote machines who have been exploited and I would expect the appliance would be protecting me from known brute force attacks.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2015 00:23:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cutwail-pushdo-smtp-attack-vulnerability-detection/m-p/67531#M39575</guid>
      <dc:creator>ReubenFarrelly</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-11-01T00:23:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cutwail/PushDo SMTP Attack Vulnerability Detection</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cutwail-pushdo-smtp-attack-vulnerability-detection/m-p/67533#M39577</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The best way to communicate on these types of issues with Palo Alto is by opening an official support ticket.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Support will first be able to determine what current signatures are aimed at this vulnerabiliity. &amp;nbsp;This will be fastest if you have the CVE handy.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Assuming there is an approach against the CVE, they will be able to determine if you are correctly configured so that the traffic is reviewed against the existing signature.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Should there not be anything in place now, they can also be your conduit to submit requests for enhancements to the correct team.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2015 11:54:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cutwail-pushdo-smtp-attack-vulnerability-detection/m-p/67533#M39577</guid>
      <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-11-01T11:54:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

