50 Million Potentially Vulnerable To UPnP Flaws

Gunkerty Jeb writes "In a project that found more than 80 million unique IP addresses responding to Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) discovery requests, researchers at Rapid7 were shocked to find that somewhere between 40 and 50 million of those are vulnerable to at least one of three known attacks. A Rapid7 white paper enumerated UPnP-exposed systems connected to the Internet and identified the number of vulnerabilities present in common configurations. Researchers found that more than 6,900 product models produced by 1,500 different vendors contained at least one known vulnerability, with 23 million systems housing the same remote code execution flaw. 'This research was primarily focused on vulnerabilities in the SSDP processor across embedded devices,' Rapid7's CSO HD Moore said. 'The general process was to identify what was out there, make a list of the most commonly used software stacks, and then audit those stacks for vulnerabilities. The results were much worse than we anticipated, with the most commonly used software stack (libupnp) also being the most vulnerable.'"

Comments

Is it ``hacking'', the way they discovered it?

[girlinatrainingbra]

So did they come up with the number of vulnerable sites from (a) -- sales figures of devices with UPnP enabled by default,

or did they actually do active spidering of (b):

1 -- a representative sample of IP addresses in a particular space 2 -- a wide ranging probe of many many IP addresses all around the world?
.

If they did (a) above, then sure it makes sense. If they did (b1) or (b2) above, especially if they didn't get the permission of every IP address which they probed/tested, then aren't they doing illegal penetration testing, even if all they are doing is checking for the existence of a responding port? I mean one or two or an accidental port knock would be like knocking IRL on a random stranger's door, but a sequential serialized intentional attempt to knock on so many doors to test vulnerability, well that's just annoying and wrong, and possibly illegal,eh?

find the posts

[r00t]

Just yesterday, lots of Slashdot readers claimed UPnP was totally reasonable for security. It's time for a wall of shame. Here is the story:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/01/29/0111238/58000-security-camera-systems-critically-vulnerable-to-attackers

I'll start.

adolf: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3415287&cid=42722879
Miamicanes: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3415287&cid=42723217
julesh: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3415287&cid=42723393