ROBOT attack - some advice needed

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements
Please sign in to see details of an important advisory in our Customer Advisories area.

ROBOT attack - some advice needed

L4 Transporter

Hello

 

According to https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/Threat-Vulnerability-Articles/PAN-OS-exposure-to-ROBOT-attack/t...

For complete protection, signature #38407 must be applied upstream from any interfaces implementing SSL Decryption, or hosting a GlobalProtect portal or a GlobalProtect gateway.

 

I have 760 content update applied. I tryed to scan ma GP interface using https://robotattack.org/ scanner and of course I'm voulnereable because I'm using PANOS 8.0.6h3 but in threat logs I see nothing related to ROBOT or 38407  attack.

 

What security policy I should have to protect before this attact? I'm not using SSL decryption.

 

 

Regards

SLawek

1 accepted solution

Accepted Solutions

As best practice I'd recommend moving the GP interface (and any other 'service' including mgmt etc) to a retracted interface like a loopback so any packets need to pass through the dataplane before even touching the service
Tom Piens
PANgurus - Strata specialist; config reviews, policy optimization

View solution in original post

5 REPLIES 5

L7 Applicator

What security policy permits traffic from Untrust to your GP Portal/Gateway?  Do you have an explicit policy defined, or are you relying on the default/implicit intra-zone permit policy (which defaults to no logging)?

 

You can either create an explicit policy before the intra-zone policy that permits untrust to untrust/gp portal+gateway, with vulnerability signatures & logging enabled... or you can modify(override) the default intra-zone policy and make your changes on the action tab.  

I'll have to disagree with @jvalentine on this one:

The service, if running on the external interface, will already be vulnerable before the intrazone policy is able to protect it
Ideally you should either block the vulnerability upstream (this can be accomplished by gearing a vwire in front of the untrust interface,), or you can host the GP service on a loopback interface (this loopback can also be in the untrust zone, but because the packets need to "jump" interfaces, they can efficiently be blocked by a security profile)
Tom Piens
PANgurus - Strata specialist; config reviews, policy optimization

@reaperYes You are right. I'm using  external interface in GP configuration.

I checked KB and I found link

 

Do You have better doc for it?

as we know ... in the future for sure will be another volnureability so the best option will be properly configure GP to use ThreatPrevention to protect it.

 

Regards

Slawek

As best practice I'd recommend moving the GP interface (and any other 'service' including mgmt etc) to a retracted interface like a loopback so any packets need to pass through the dataplane before even touching the service
Tom Piens
PANgurus - Strata specialist; config reviews, policy optimization

@reaper

 

thanks for the clarification... "upstream" getting the most emphasis.  Also good to know the added benefit of running on loopbacks vs interfaces.  Have to tuck that away for future reference.  Thanks!

  • 1 accepted solution
  • 4842 Views
  • 5 replies
  • 0 Likes
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 LIVEcommunity as a whole!

The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!