PA doesn't cover DROWN Attack?

Announcements

ATTENTION Customers, All Partners and Employees: The Customer Support Portal (CSP) will be undergoing maintenance and unavailable on Saturday, November 7, 2020, from 11 am to 11 pm PST. Please read our blog for more information.

Reply
Highlighted
L5 Sessionator

PA doesn't cover DROWN Attack?

A customer has been warned about DROWN attack (https://drownattack.com/) on one of its servers. As a server is behind PA I thought there was no risk. But searching through signature database I didn't find anything about DROWN attack. I've also checked all CVEs connected with attack (CVE-2015-3197, CVE-2016-0703, CVE-2016-0800) and PA doesn't have signature for any of them! 

 

Anyone knows about if PA covers this attack? Anyone contacted PA about this already?

 

Highlighted
Community Team Member

Hi santonic,

 

This has been reported to support yes.

I'd recommend that you open a case with support to get information on the coverage.

 

Cheers,

-Kim.

Highlighted
L4 Transporter

Hi Santonic,

 

My understanding is that this attack requires SSLv2 to be supported? (correct me If I am wrong) I think the worse security risk is to have a server that supports SSLv2, I know the PAN  device does not support this, it doesn't even support v3. I know SSLv2 was removed from OpenSSL toolkit on the 15th feb this year with v1.1.0.

 

Ben

Highlighted
L5 Sessionator

Yes, I agree. But one of the IPS functions is also to protect old or unpatched servers.

Customer was of course advised to upgrade the server.

 

 

Highlighted
L2 Linker

From my understanding of this vulnerability, a signature to cover the weakness might be difficult to create.
Since the exploit collects data and then decrypts it, the vulnerability is not based in a protocol anomaly or an easily detectable exploit.
The collection of data based on cracking a 40-bit RSA key, and can be found over time against the realtive limited variations with 40-bit.
Data collection might be by interception between client and server, and this would be undetectable to both.


It might seem better to update the servers use of TLS/SSL, rather than wait for a usefull signature.

Highlighted
Cyber Elite

Would the PAN be able to detet this if it was performing reverse proxy ssl decryption?

 

Just a thought

Highlighted
L5 Sessionator

Hi,

 

decryption would not really help, as Dulle explained intercepting communication over long time is sufficient to exploit this. Decryption can't help if someone is somewhere allowing (knowingly or unknowingly) copying of your traffic as it passes along the way.

 

Highlighted
L2 Linker

And there came Application and Threat Content Release Notes Version 567, and proved me wrong....

Highlighted
L5 Sessionator

Not really Dulle. The signature doesn't detect any exploit. It just detects use of SSLv2. 

Like what you see?

Show your appreciation!

Click Like if a post is helpful to you or if you just want to show your support.

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 Live Community as a whole!

The Live Community thanks you for your participation!