Vulnerabilities. Figure 6 shows an overview of the vulnerabilities and how often we encountered them among the 80 surveyed banks. Each vulnerability is discussed briefly. At the end of 2014, a successful attack was made against SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 when block ciphers are used. An adversary manipulates a user’s browser to send requests to a site using SSL/TLS where the user is logged in. Important information can be derived by observing the cipher text, such as session cookies that can be used to hijack sessions. This attack was named POODLE [Mo¨ller et al. 2014; Xxxxxxx 2014]*. Vulnerabilities to POODLE are only noted for 2015 since the attack was not yet known in 2013. For SSL 3.0, the only way to protect against POODLE is by disabling cipher suites that use block ciphers. POODLE also works with some web servers that implement padding in TLS 1.0 incorrectly, which updates to the web server software might be able to solve. Figure 6 shows the number of banks that are vulnerable to POODLE with either SSL 3.0 or TLS. Five banks overlap, and are vulnerable to POODLE attacks with both protocol versions. Therefore, 30 out of 80 banks in our survey are vulnerable to POODLE attacks. Within the SSL/TLS protocol suite (up to versions 3.0/1.0, respectively), one method to encrypt data is with block ciphers used in Cipher-Block Chaining (CBC) mode. The SSL/TLS standard mandates that chained Initialization Vectors (IVs) are used with CBC mode encryption. With chained initialization vectors, the last block of the previous ciphertext is used as an IV for the next message. This presents a vulnerability that can be exploited using a Blockwise Chosen-Boundary Attack (BCBA) [Xxxxx and Xxxxx 2011]*. A BCBA applied on a HTTPS session is known as a BEAST attack [National Institute of Standards and Technology 2011]*. BEAST can be mitigated by letting servers only allow connections exclusively using TLS 1.1 or 1.2. Figure 6 shows that between 2013 and 2015 the number of banks that are vulnerable to BEAST attacks has increased. An explanation for this is that banks that became vulnerable at one point in time stopped supporting RC4, the only streaming cipher supported by SSL/TLS, since it is vulnerable to attacks [AlFardan et al. 2013]. The only alternative without disabling support for the older SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 protocol versions were cipher suites that applied CBC, and by implementing those the relevant banks became vulnerable to BEAST. This is likely seen as the preferable alternative, since t...
Vulnerabilities. During the term of the Agreement the Contractor and/or the manufacturer of the relevant product are obliged to inform or publish information about the discovered vulnerabilities of the information and communication technology product or service, their prevention measures and deadlines.
Vulnerabilities. Provider shall have controls in place to identify any security vulnerabilities in the Solutions during development and after release. Provider shall provide RSA written notice of: (a) publicly-acknowledged vulnerabilities/zero-day exploits within five (5) business days of the public acknowledgement, and (b) internally-known yet publicly-undisclosed vulnerabilities/zero-day exploits within ten (10) business days of their discovery. Provider commits to remediate all vulnerabilities identified in the Solutions at Provider’s expense, and to remediate vulnerabilities with a base score above 4 as defined by Common Vulnerability Scoring System in a timeframe commensurate with the risk or as agreed upon with RSA. Provider’s use of open source code shall not alter Provider’s responsibility to identify and remediate vulnerabilities as described here.
Vulnerabilities. Provider shall have controls in place to identify any security vulnerabilities in the Solutions during development and after release. Provider shall provide Dell written notice of (a) publicly-acknowledged vulnerabilities/zero day exploits within five business days of the public acknowledgement; and (b) internally-known yet publicly-undisclosed vulnerabilities/zero day exploits within ten business days of their discovery. Provider commits to remediate all vulnerabilities identified in the Solutions at Provider’s expense, and to remediate vulnerabilities with a base score above 4 as defined by Common Vulnerability Scoring System in a timeframe commensurate with the risk or as agreed upon with Dell. Provider’s use of open source code shall not alter Provider’s responsibility to identify and remediate vulnerabilities as described here.
Vulnerabilities. Provider must provide vulnerability scanning services for critical systems or systems hosting sensitive data. Provider must provide attestation by an objective third party, stating that the application has been tested for known security vulnerabilities, including, without limitation, the "OWASP Top-10" as published by the Open Web Application Security Project (see xxx.xxxxx.xxx for current list of the top 10).
Vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities of the BYka scheme are broken down and analysed in the three main parts:
Vulnerabilities. Identify any known circumstances where a vulnerability in any of your products has resulted in a data breach for an end user.
Vulnerabilities. (OPSEC vulnerabilities are normally found in the processes and procedures routinely used by organizations. This section should discuss the process by which vulnerabilities to critical information will be determined. This section will become more focused as the program/activity matures. This part of the plan will require periodic updating based on new threat information and changes in the scope of the program/activity. Determining vulnerabilities involves a systematic analysis of how an operation or activity is actually conducted by the primary and supporting organizations. The organization and activity must be viewed as an adversary might view it. Actions and things that can be observed, or other data that can be interpreted or pieced together to drive critical information, must be identified. These potential vulnerabilities must be matched with specific threats. Once you determine what an adversary needs to know and where that information is available, it is necessary to determine if it is possible that the adversary could acquire and exploit the information in time to capitalize on it. If so, a vulnerability exists.)
Vulnerabilities. Provider shall have controls in place to identify any security vulnerabilities in the Solutions during development and after release. Provider shall provide SecurID written notice of: (a) publicly-acknowledged vulnerabilities/zero-day exploits within five (5) business days of the public acknowledgement, and (b) internally-known yet publicly-undisclosed vulnerabilities/zero-day exploits within ten (10) business days of their discovery. Provider commits to remediate all vulnerabilities identified in the Solutions at Provider’s expense, and to remediate vulnerabilities with a base score above 4 as defined by Common Vulnerability Scoring System in a timeframe commensurate with the risk or as agreed upon with SecurID. Provider’s use of open source code shall not alter Provider’s responsibility to identify and remediate vulnerabilities as described here.
Vulnerabilities. Vulnerable points in the PATHS system architecture include: • The authentication module accepts logins over standard HTTP which renders user credentials visible in the case of IP address spoofing. • Login screens are vulnerable to brute-force password attacks • Elevated user rights permitting read/write to the virtual file repository sub-system may cause accidental deletion of PATHS non-database files. • Elevated user rights permitting table level update and deletion of records may compromise data integrity for PATHS RBDMS data.
