apache - Nocturnalknight's Lair

What is SA-Core-2018-002 and How Acquia Mitigated 500000 attacks on Drupal

By [email protected] | April 26, 2018 | Comments 0 Comment

Disclaimer: I have been working on WCMS and specifically with Acquia/Drupal for more than seven years. And in that period, I have developed a Love/hate relationship with Drupal. Love for Drupal 6 and hate for 7. Or something like that. So my views may be slightly unneutral.

On March 28th, the Drupal Security Team released a bug fix for a critical security vulnerability, named SA-CORE-2018-002. Over the next week, various exploits have been identified, as attackers have attempted to compromise unpatched Drupal sites. Hackers continue to try to exploit this vulnerability, and Acquia’s own security team has observed more than 100,000 attacks a day.

The Remote code execution exploit or the so-called SA-CORE-2018-002 was a vulnerability that had been present on various layers of Drupal 7 and 8. And Drupal being Drupal, had one of the most efficient governance among Open Source projects around. This I can say with confidence and pride as I have had more than a few interactions with the community, notifying issues, committing documentation, in feature roadmap discussions (Agreed, some of them are heated!) and submitting patch/fixes. Drupal community has very high standards and even though your patch or fix has functionally addressed the underlying issue, it may be declined. That said, it’s also one of the democratic community software you can get. Still, They insist on following the stringent and high community standards for the modules or themes.
So, it is no surprise that Drupal today has one of the most Responsible Disclosure policy.
Drupal community had previously notified all the developers in official channels and had asked to prepare a high impact patch. Meanwhile, Acquia did the same for its SMEs and Enterprise clients as well. Those in the deep of it knew a bit early on the nature of exploit and mitigation strategy.
And in the community forums, there were detailed descriptions of planning this infrastructure patch up and how to plan for uptime, isolation post disclosure, patching, updation and redeployment.
Multiple methods to suit multiple needs of the environment, architecture etc has also begun to appear. It was one giant machinery, albeit a self-governing one in it. I have known large organisations do a hodge-podge patchwork and contain the underlying vulnerability. Leaving a vendetta-driven Ex-Employee or a determined Hacker to expose the inner workings of the exploit. It had resulted in many multi-million dollar loss. Only after the #Apache project had reached a state of maturity, did these larger organisations learnt the art of disclosure. but, how many of them were practising it is a big question.
Till 28th March 2018, there were no (publically) known exploit for the RCA in Drupal 7/8.
This all changed after Checkpoint Research released a detailed step by step explanation of the security bug SA-CORE-2018-02 and how it can be exploited. In less than 6 hours after Checkpoint Research’s blog post, Vitalii Rudnykh, a Russian security researcher, shared a proof-of-concept exploit on GitHub.
The article by Checkpoint Research and Rudnykh’s proof-of-concept code have spawned numerous exploits, which are written in different programming languages such as Ruby, Bash, Python and more. As a result, the number of attacks has grown significantly after that.
The scale and the severity of this attack suggest that if you failed to upgrade your Drupal sites, or your site is not supported by Acquia Cloud or another trusted vendor that provides platform level fixes, the chances of your site being hacked are very high. If you haven’t upgraded your site yet and you are not on a protected platform then assume your site is compromised. Rebuild your host, reinstall Drupal from a backup taken before the vulnerability was announced and upgrade before putting the site back online.

Geographic distribution of SA-CORE Attack Vectors

Solution:

Upgrade to the most recent version of Drupal 7 or 8 core.

If you are running 7.x, upgrade to Drupal 7.58. (If you are unable to update immediately, you can attempt to apply this patch to fix the vulnerability until such time as you are able to completely update.)
If you are running 8.5.x, upgrade to Drupal 8.5.1. (If you are unable to update immediately, you can attempt to apply this patch to fix the vulnerability until such time as you are able to completely update.)

Drupal 8.3.x and 8.4.x are no longer supported and the community doesn’t normally provide security releases for unsupported minor releases. However, given the potential severity of this issue, Drupal community choose to provide 8.3.x and 8.4.x releases that include the fix for sites which have not yet had a chance to update to 8.5.0.

Open Source Vs Open Governance: The state and Future of Open Source Movement

By [email protected] | November 16, 2016 | Comments 0 Comment

Last week, DataStax announced that it was jettisoning its role in maintaining the Planet Cassandra community resource site, even as the project lead, Jonathan Ellis, made it known that DataStax would be doubling down on its commercial product, rather than Cassandra. Though the DataStax team put a brave face on the changes, the real question is why DataStax had to change at all.
Similarly, When Sun and then Oracle bought MySQL AB, the company behind the original development, MySQL open source database development governance gradually closed. Now, only Oracle writes updates, patches and features. Updates from other sources — individuals or other companies — are ignored.
These are two opposite extremes in the open-source movement. When an open source project reaches a critical threshold and following, it grows bigger than the chief contributor. A company or a group of people, it may be. But, it has taken shape in such a way that they can no longer commit resources and still the community will take care of everything, features, development, support, documentation and everything in between. This is the real essence of open source development.
However, it is absolutely necessary for an initial sponsor for the project to thrive in its infancy.
MySQL is still open source, but it has a closed governance.
In the case of MySQL, the source code was forked by the community, and the MariaDB project started from there. Nowadays, when somebody says s/he is “using MySQL”, he is in fact probably using MariaDB, which has evolved from where MySQL stopped in time.
Take a look at the Github page of MySQL for reference.

MySQL Repository with its core Contributors: A project which powers 1 in 3 Web sites and apps, having 51 developers!!!

All Core committers are from Oracle !

Cassandra is still open source, but now it has open governance.
The Cassandra question is ultimately about control. As the ASF board noted in the minutes from its meeting with DataStax representatives, “The Board expressed continuing concern that the PMC was not acting independently and that one company had undue influence over the project.” Given that DataStax has been Cassandra’s primary development engine since the day it spun out of Facebook, this “undue influence” is hardly new.
And, according to some closest to Cassandra, like former Cassandra MVP Kelly Sommers, that “undue influence” has borne exceptional fruits. Sommers clearly feels this way, insisting that the ASF “is really out of line in their actions with Cassandra,” ultimately concluding that the ASF might be hostile to the very people most responsible for a project’s success.
In her view, the ASF’s search for diversity in the Cassandra project should have started with expanding its existing leadership, rather than cutting it out: “The ASF forced DataStax to reduce their role in Cassandra rather than forming a long-term strategy to grow diversity around theirs,” Sommers said.
Though Sommers doesn’t directly comment on the trademark issues, she didn’t pull any punches in her disdain for project process over code results: “Politics is off the rails when focus is lost on success of the thing it runs and all that matters is process. This is how I feel ASF operates,”
So, for companies hoping to monetise open source, the Cassandra blow-up is a not-so-subtle reminder that community can be inimical to commercial interests, however much it can fuel adoption. It may also be a signal to the ASF that less corporate influence on projects could yield less code.
Now, Back to our agenda.

Open source vs. open governance

Open source software’s momentum serves as a powerful insurance policy for the investment of time and resources an individual or enterprise user will put into it. This is the true benefit behind Linux as an operating system, Samba as a file server, Apache HTTPD as a web server, Hadoop, Docker, MongoDB, PHP, Python, JQuery, Bootstrap and other hyper-essential open source projects, each on its own level of the stack. Open source momentum is the safe antidote to technology lock-in. Having learned that lesson over the last decade, enterprises are now looking for the new functionalities that are gaining momentum: cloud management software, big data, analytics, integration middleware and application frameworks.
On the open domain, the only two non-functional things that matter in the long term are whether it is open source and if it has attained momentum in the community and industry. None of this is related to how the software is being written, but this is exactly what open governance is concerned with: the how.

The value of momentum

Open governance alone does not guarantee that the software will be good, popular or useful (though formal open governance only happens on projects that have already captured some attention of IT industry leaders). A few examples of open source projects that have formal open governance are CloudFoundry, OpenStack, JQuery and all the projects under the Apache Software Foundation umbrella.
For users, the indirect benefit of open governance is only related to the speed the open source project reaches momentum and high popularity.
In conclusion it is a very delicate act of balancing Open-Source development and Open-Governance on Development. Oracle failed in getting the diversity thereby creating MariaDB while ASF ejected Datastax to avoid a repeat of the former!!!