CVE-2009-3555 and PCI Compliance

[genesiswave at gmail.com (genesiswave at gmail.com)]

The automated scanners have a few problems. Not the least of which is that they are a requirement for being PCI 
certified (but that is more of my own view)
I have had several customers fail their acan based on "open" ports that were not open at all (138 and 139 on a Linux 
box without Samba installed)
The scans can catch things but from my experience and exposure to the scans they are hitting on more false positives 
than they are hitting actual errors (at least for our hosted clients who we provide management for). If the false 
positives are as high as my experience leads me to believe, it leads me to question how high a false negative rate 
these scans have
As far as the scan results for this particular issue, I'd recommend going back to the vendor and push for their 
recommended solution for your platform/OS
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Daniel <jackadaniel at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:27:06 
To: PaulDotCom Security Weekly Mailing List<pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Pauldotcom] CVE-2009-3555 and PCI Compliance

AAAAAAAUUUUGGGGHHH!

<RANT>
If anyone "fails" you on an assessment without providing guidance on
resolution/remediation/mitigation, your payment to them should "fail"
to appear.  Who was this, those (in my personal *opinion*) monkey
sodomizing rat bastards at Security Metrics?  Or just another Qualys
scan pusher without a clue or care?

I believe the appropriate questions are things like "what is exposed
by this", "what are the likelihood and impacts of compromise", "can we
mitigate a fundamental flaw in the protocol with additional
processes", etc?

I'm still explaining to idiots like this why TCP 587 is listening on
mail servers.
</RANT>

As far as mitigation, maybe a patched proxy in front of the SSL/TLS
device(s) could handle it?  Or maybe nothing significant is actually
exposed by this?

<SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION>
This kind of crap is what led me to get involved in an ongoing PCI DSS
conversation with a bunch of people- podcasts, articles, and talks to
come.  I'll be on a panel at Shmoocon with some folks who actually
know what they're talking about, we'll be discussing the realities of
PCI and its impact on our industry.
</SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION>

Who, me, too much caffeine? Nah.

Jack


-- 
______________________________________
Jack Daniel, Reluctant CISSP
http://twitter.com/jack_daniel
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackadaniel
http://blog.uncommonsensesecurity.com




On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Monkey Daemon
<monkeywebdaemon at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've been speaking to a family member over the weekend who works in a
> similar line of work to myself and we got to talking about PCI
> Compliance.
>
> He's just had a quarterly scan performed and he failed it owing to the
> issues with Session Negotiation when using SSL/TLS. ?The problem he
> has is that he's running Linux and not only has his distro not
> released packages for OpenSSL 0.9.8l but the distro vendor is refusing
> to issue a patch stating that as its an issue with the underlying
> protocol there is no point.
>
> Does anyone have a fix to this other than "compile your own SSL with
> negotiation switched off and hope nothing breaks"?
>
> I'm now concerned that when our scan comes around early next year we
> will also fail.
>
> Cheers,
>
> MWD.
_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com