Enhanced Security Measures in Place: To ensure a safer experience, we’ve implemented additional, temporary security measures for all users.
04-07-2014 10:35 PM
Hi,
Just wondering if any Palo Alto versions are affected by this bug in OpenSSL?
Regards
04-09-2014 02:58 PM
Is there any way of ensuring you have the correct one?
I logged to the emergency notification this morning and was unable to download on my firewalls (way to go for your content delivery network, Palo Alto, by the way - just fantastic that you send out an emergency noticew via email and then we can't download it), so I downloaded it from the support portal and installed manually - but I don't know how to tell if I have the correct version installed.
04-09-2014 03:10 PM
See the official response linked below:
Why was Emergency 429 Content Briefly Pulled?
To my knowledge, the original file was reposted and there were no changes made.
04-10-2014 12:59 AM
I have 429-2164 update installed, and I expected to sow in thread logs entries with ( threatid eq 36416) - but I haven't such entries.
I did some verification test by http://possible.lv/tools/hb/ webpage so in my opinion it should appear in thread logs.
Is it normal behaviour?
Regards
Slawek
04-10-2014 02:46 AM
Palo Alto has just released threat and content version 430
04-10-2014 02:49 AM
yes, and I've just applied it and still the same. No entries in threat log for threated 36416 when doing vulnerability tests with all available online tools.
04-10-2014 03:35 AM
Are you performing SSL inspection? Still trying to work out if this is required to catch this vulnerability with IPS... Depends if it happens inside an establish TLS tunnel or in clear text I suppose?
04-10-2014 03:39 AM
This does not require to have inbound SSL inspection in place. The vuln is detected during SSL negotiation.
04-10-2014 03:56 AM
I guess the targeted host must have a vulnerable version of openssl installed to trigger one of the four TP signatures. At least I cannot trigger an alert with 430 installed against a non vulnerable host. Makes sense somehow...
04-10-2014 05:10 AM
Thank you!
Got it all working perfectly now at several locations. I also created a custom rule to block/drop those medium severity signatures in the latest update, this results in the online tests failing too (malformed response) to give clients some extra peace of mind.
Seeing a large number of IPs from China trying to exploit this!
Several days of replacing SSL certificates ahead of me now!
04-10-2014 05:49 AM
davido140 wrote:
Thank you!
Got it all working perfectly now at several locations. I also created a custom rule to block/drop those medium severity signatures in the latest update, this results in the online tests failing too (malformed response) to give clients some extra peace of mind.
Seeing a large number of IPs from China trying to exploit this!
Several days of replacing SSL certificates ahead of me now!
What parameters did you use to trigger this rule? I'm not seeing any way to trigger on a threat ID or anything like that.:smileyconfused:
04-10-2014 06:03 AM
Just used heartbleed in the threat name on the rule in the Vuln' protection profile and set the action to block
This forces traffic to be dropped for the "medium" severity threats related to heartbleed in the 430 update.
Effect from one of the online tests will be a timeout and you'll get an event in the threat log.
The target system MUST be vulnerable to trigger these signatures, if you've already patched it you wont see anything in the logs.
Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.
The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!
These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the LIVEcommunity as a whole!
The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!
