Skip to main content

AWS Security Anti Patterns

The below are a few security anti patterns for AWS cloud which should be avoided when implementing comprehensive cloud security strategy:

Security Anti-patterns Categories:
- Account Structure
- N/w design
- Auditing
- S/W delivery

AntiPattern (Account Structure): Personally owned AWS account
- Make sure the Root account (login, MFA) is not tied to a person's email id. Root email id should be tied to team DL
- Root MFA must be tied with some sort of official hardware device
- Contact info etc must be of office address
- No one logs into the account root. Use IAM only.

Anti-pattern (Account Structure): AWS account overcrowding
- Not all and every services/ teams should be placed under one single account. It becomes very hard to manage policy wise and governance wise
- If admin creds for the account is compromise, the blast radius will be more, all the services get compromised
- If some of the services are in scope for compliance, and since they are not separated, it'll be a concern from Compliance perspective.
- Multi- account pattern is recommended. Where the accounts are grouped logically.

Anti-pattern (N/W design): Trusted IP access w/p client auth

- Routing should not be treated as security
- Segregate and use a lot of relevant edge devices and services to achieve defense in depth- AWS Shield, API Gateway, IAM auth, cert etc

Anti-pattern (N/W design):N/W egress back hauling
- Don't directly talk to internet. Restrict egress via Exit VPC
- Use VPC endpoint to talk to publicly hosted services such as S3.

Anti-pattern (Auditing): Questionnaires
- Create attestations instead of entertaining long list of client's questionnaires about the organization's security postures and implementations.
- Get certifications/ assurances and maintain standards sich as ISO 2Ks, SOc2, PCI -DSS etc

Anti-pattern (Auditing): Manual technical auditing
- Inconsistent
- Time consuming, not frequent
- USe automated continuous auditing tools and processes such as Cloud Watch, Inspector, Trusted adviser, Evident.io
- Practice DevSecOps- securit as a code, proactive controls enforced by code

Anti-pattern (S/W delivery): Over-the-wall s/w delivery
- Dev, QA, and ops kept separte- no concept of DevOps basically
- A lot of manual process
- Infrequent release cycles
- Implement DevSecOps

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ardilla- New tool for finding SQL Injection and XSS

Three Researchers -- MIT's Adam Kiezun , Stanford's Philip Guo , and Syracuse University's Karthick Jayaraman -- has developed a new tool ' Ardilla ' that automatically finds and exploits SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in Web applications. It creates inputs that pinpoint bugs in Web applications and then generates SQL injection and XSS attacks. But for now Ardilla is for PHP -based Web app only. The researchers say Ardilla found 68 never-before found vulnerabilities in five different PHP applications using the tool -- 23 SQL injection and 45 XSS flaws. More information is awaited. For their attack generation techniques refer to their document at: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/pubs/create-attacks-tr054.pdf

Combining power of Fiddler with Burp

Both are pretty powerful tools when it comes to intercept and modify http communications. But at some point of time, they become even more powerful combo if tied with each other. They complement each other. In a recent pentest I came across a similar situation where in Burp was not able to intercept a specific kind of traffic and Fiddler came to rescue. The application was designed to upload video. The initial communication was straight forward, I mean logging into application, filling up the video details etc. And all these were easily captured by Burp except the point where you hit the Upload Video and it connects to a different server and surprisingly it was not captured by Burp, not sure why, even after repeated attempts. So, I fired Fiddler to see if the it sees this request. But it's a;ways to play with requests using Burp due to it's various functionalities like, Intruder, Repeaters etc. But it was necessary to capture this request in Burp. So the below steps can be

File Upload through Null Byte Injection

Sometimes, during file upload we come across situation wherein there would be check on the file extension at the client side as well as server side too. If the application does allow only .jpeg extension to be uploaded, the client side java script checks for the extension of the file before passing the request. We all know that how easily this can be defeated. Some applications, checks for the extension at the server side also. That's not easy to bypass. However there are some ways with which it still can be bypassed. Most of server side scripts are written in high level languages such as Php, Java etc who still use some C/C++ libraries to read the file name and contents. That leads to the problem. In C/C++ a line ends with /00 or which is called Null Byte. So whenever the interpreter sees a null byte at the end of the a string, it stops reading thinking it has reached at the end of the string. This can be used for the bypass. It works for many servers, specially php servers. T