Overview of MITRE ATT&CK Execution Tactic (TA0002)
Introduction to Execution Tactic (TA0002): Execution refers to the methods adversaries use to run malicious code on a target system. This tactic includes a range of techniques designed to execute payloads after gaining access to the network. It is a key stage in the attack lifecycle, as it allows attackers to activate their malicious actions, such as deploying malware, running scripts, or exploiting system vulnerabilities. Successful execution can lead to deeper system control, enabling attackers to perform actions like data theft, system manipulation, or establishing persistence for future exploitation. Now, let’s dive into the various techniques under the Execution tactic and explore how attackers use them. 1. T1651: Cloud Administration Command: Cloud management services can be exploited to execute commands within virtual machines. If an attacker gains administrative access to a cloud environment, they may misuse these services to run commands on the virtual machines. Furthermore, if an adversary compromises a service provider or a delegated administrator account, they could also exploit trusted relationships to execute commands on connected virtual machines. 2. T1059: Command and Scripting Interpreter The misuse of command and script interpreters allows adversaries to execute commands, scripts, or binaries. These interfaces, such as Unix shells on macOS and Linux, Windows Command Shell, and PowerShell are common across platforms and provide direct interaction with systems. Cross-platform interpreters like Python, as well as those tied to client applications (e.g., JavaScript, Visual Basic), can also be misused. Attackers may embed commands and scripts in initial access payloads or download them later via an established C2 (Command and Control) channel. Commands may also be executed via interactive shells or through remote services to enable remote execution. (.001) PowerShell: As PowerShell is already part of Windows, attackers often exploit it to execute commands discreetly without triggering alarms. It’s often used for things like finding information, moving across networks, and running malware directly in memory. This helps avoid detection because nothing is written to disk. Attackers can also execute PowerShell scripts without launching the powershell.exe program by leveraging.NET interfaces. Tools like Empire, PowerSploit, and PoshC2 make it even easier for attackers to use PowerShell for malicious purposes. Example - Remote Command Execution (.002) AppleScript: AppleScript is an macOS scripting language designed to control applications and system components through inter-application messages called AppleEvents. These AppleEvent messages can be sent by themselves or with AppleScript. They can find open windows, send keystrokes, and interact with almost any open application, either locally or remotely. AppleScript can be executed in various ways, including through the command-line interface (CLI) and built-in applications. However, it can also be abused to trigger actions that exploit both the system and the network. (.003) Windows Command Shell: The Windows Command Prompt (CMD) is a lightweight, simple shell on Windows systems, allowing control over most system aspects with varying permission levels. However, it lacks the advanced capabilities of PowerShell. CMD can be used from a distance using Remote Services. Attackers may use it to execute commands or payloads, often sending input and output through a command-and-control channel. Example - Remote Command Execution (.004) Unix Shell: Unix shells serve as the primary command-line interface on Unix-based systems. They provide control over nearly all system functions, with certain commands requiring elevated privileges. Unix shells can be used to run different commands or payloads. They can also run shell scripts to combine multiple commands as part of an attack. Example - Remote Command Execution (.005) Visual Basic: Visual Basic (VB) is a programming language developed by Microsoft, now considered a legacy technology. Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) and VBScript are derivatives of VB. Malicious actors may exploit VB payloads to execute harmful commands, with common attacks, including automating actions via VBScript or embedding VBA content (like macros) in spear-phishing attachments. (.006) Python: Attackers often use popular scripting languages, like Python, due to their interoperability, cross-platform support, and ease of use. Python can be run interactively from the command line or through scripts that can be distributed across systems. It can also be compiled into binary executables. With many built-in libraries for system interaction, such as file operations and device I/O, attackers can leverage Python to download and execute commands, scripts, and perform various malicious actions. Example - Code Injection (.007) JavaScript: JavaScript (JS) is a platform-independent scripting language, commonly used in web pages and runtime environments. Microsoft's JScript and JavaScript for Automation (JXA) on macOS are based on JS. Adversaries exploit JS to execute malicious scripts, often through Drive-by Compromise or by downloading scripts as secondary payloads. Since JS is text-based, it is often obfuscated to evade detection. Example - XSS (.008) Network Device CLI: Network devices often provide a CLI or scripting interpreter accessible via direct console connection or remotely through telnet or SSH. These interfaces allow interaction with the device for various functions. Adversaries may exploit them to alter device behavior, manipulate traffic, load malicious software by modifying configurations, or disable security features and logging to avoid detection. (.009) Cloud API: Cloud APIs offer programmatic access to nearly all aspects of a tenant, available through methods like CLIs, in-browser Cloud Shells, PowerShell modules (e.g., Azure for PowerShell), or SDKs for languages like Python. These APIs provide administrative access to major services. Malicious actors with valid credentials, often stolen, can exploit these APIs to perform malicious actions. (.010) AutoHotKey & AutoIT: AutoIT and AutoHotkey (AHK) are scripting languages used to automate Windows tasks, such as clicking buttons, entering text, and managing programs. Attackers may exploit AHK (.ahk) and AutoIT (.au3) scripts to execute malicious code, like payloads or keyloggers. These scripts can also be embedded in phishing payloads or compiled into standalone executable files (.011) Lua: Lua is a cross-platform scripting and programming language, primarily designed for embedding in applications. It can be executed via the command-line using the standalone Lua interpreter, through scripts (.lua), or within Lua-embedded programs. Adversaries may exploit Lua scripts for malicious purposes, such as abusing or replacing existing Lua interpreters to execute harmful commands at runtime. Malware examples developed using Lua include EvilBunny, Line Runner, PoetRAT, and Remsec. (.012) Hypervisor CLI: Hypervisor CLIs offer extensive functionality for managing both the hypervisor and its hosted virtual machines. On ESXi systems, tools like “esxcli” and “vim-cmd” allow administrators to configure and perform various actions. Attackers may exploit these tools to enable actions like File and Directory Discovery or Data Encrypted for Impact. Malware such as Cheerscrypt and Royal ransomware have leveraged this technique. 3. T1609: Container Administration Command Adversaries may exploit container administration services, like the Docker daemon, Kubernetes API server, or kubelet, to execute commands within containers. In Docker, attackers can specify an entry point to run a script or use docker exec to execute commands in a running container. In Kubernetes, with sufficient permissions, adversaries can gain remote execution by interacting with the API server, kubelet, or using commands like kubectl exec within the cluster. 4. T1610: Deploy Container Containers can be exploited by attackers to run malicious code or bypass security measures, often through the use of harmful processes or weak settings, such as missing network rules or user restrictions. In Kubernetes environments, attackers may deploy containers with elevated privileges or vulnerabilities to access other containers or the host node. They may also use compromised or seemingly benign images that later download malicious payloads. 5. T1675: ESXi Administration Command ESXi administration services can be exploited to execute commands on guest machines within an ESXi virtual environment. ESXi-hosted VMs can be remotely managed via persistent background services, such as the VMware Tools Daemon Service. Adversaries can perform malicious activities on VMs by executing commands through SDKs and APIs, enabling follow-on behaviors like File and Directory Discovery, Data from Local System, or OS Credential Dumping. 6. T1203: Exploitation for Client Execution Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute malicious code. These exploits can target browsers, office applications, or common third-party software. By exploiting specific vulnerabilities, attackers can achieve arbitrary code execution. The most valuable exploits in an offensive toolkit are often those that enable remote code execution, as they provide a pathway to gain access to the target system. Example: Remote Code Execution 7. T1674: Input Injection Input Injection involves adversaries simulating keystrokes on a victim’s computer to carry out actions on their behalf. This can be achieved through several methods, such as emulating keystrokes to execute commands or scripts, or using malicious USB devices to inject keystrokes that trigger scripts or commands. For example, attackers have employed malicious USB devices to simulate keystrokes that launch PowerShell, enabling the download and execution of malware from attacker-controlled servers. 8. T1559: Inter-Process Communication Inter-Process Communication (IPC) is commonly used by processes to share data, exchange messages, or synchronize execution. It also helps prevent issues like deadlocks. However, IPC mechanisms can be abused by adversaries to execute arbitrary code or commands. The implementation of IPC varies across operating systems. Additionally, command and scripting interpreters may leverage underlying IPC mechanisms, and adversaries might exploit remote services—such as the Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM)—to enable remote IPC-based execution. (.001) Component Object Model (Windows): Component Object Model (COM) is an inter-process communication (IPC) mechanism in the Windows API that allows interaction between software objects. A client object can invoke methods on server objects via COM interfaces. Languages like C, C++, Java, and Visual Basic can be used to exploit COM interfaces for arbitrary code execution. Certain COM objects also support functions such as creating scheduled tasks, enabling fileless execution, and facilitating privilege escalation or persistence. (.002) Dynamic Data Exchange (Windows): Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) is a client-server protocol used for one-time or continuous inter-process communication (IPC) between applications. Adversaries can exploit DDE in Microsoft Office documents—either directly or via embedded files—to execute commands without using macros. Similarly, DDE formulas in CSV files can trigger unintended operations. This technique may also be leveraged by adversaries on compromised systems where direct access to command or scripting interpreters is restricted. (.003) XPC Services(macOS): macOS uses XPC services for inter-process communication, such as between the XPC Service daemon and privileged helper tools in third-party apps. Applications define the communication protocol used with these services. Adversaries can exploit XPC services to execute malicious code, especially if the app’s XPC handler lacks proper client validation or input sanitization, potentially leading to privilege escalation. 9. T1106: Native API Native APIs provide controlled access to low-level kernel services, including those related to hardware, memory management, and process control. These APIs are used by the operating system during system boot and for routine operations. However, adversaries may abuse native API functions to carry out malicious actions. By using assembly directly or indirectly to invoke system calls, attackers can bypass user-mode security measures such as API hooks. Also, attackers may try to change or stop defensive tools that track API use by removing functions or changing sensor behavior. Many well-known exploit tools and malware families—such as Cobalt Strike, Emotet, Lazarus Group, LockBit 3.0, and Stuxnet—have leveraged Native API techniques to bypass security mechanisms, evade detection, and execute low-level malicious operations. 10. T1053: Scheduled Task/Job This technique involves adversaries abusing task scheduling features to execute malicious code at specific times or intervals. Task schedulers are available across major operating systems—including Windows, Linux, macOS, and containerized environments—and can also be used to schedule tasks on remote systems. Adversaries commonly use scheduled tasks for persistence, privilege escalation, and to run malicious payloads under the guise of trusted system processes. (.002) At: The “At” utility is available on Windows, Linux, and macOS for scheduling tasks to run at specific times. Adversaries can exploit “At” to execute programs at system startup or on a set schedule, helping them maintain persistence. It can also be misused for remote execution during lateral movement or to run processes under the context of a specific user account. In Linux environments, attackers may use “At “to break out of restricted environments, aiding in privilege escalation. (.003) Cron: The “cron” utility is a time-based job scheduler used in Unix-like operating systems. The “crontab” file contains scheduled tasks and the times at which they should run. These files are stored in system-specific file paths. Adversaries can exploit “cron” in Linux or Unix environments to execute programs at startup or on a set schedule, maintaining persistence. In ESXi environments, “cron” jobs must be created directly through the “crontab” file. (.005) Scheduled Task: Adversaries can misuse Windows Task Scheduler to run programs at startup or on a schedule, ensuring persistence. It can also be exploited for remote execution during lateral movement or to run processes under specific accounts (e.g., SYSTEM). Similar to System Binary Proxy Execution, attackers may hide one-time executions under trusted system processes. They can also create "hidden" tasks that are not visible to defender tools or manual queries. Additionally, attackers may alter registry metadata to further conceal these tasks. (.006) Systemd Timers: Systemd timers are files with a .timer extension used to control services in Linux, serving as an alternative to Cron. They can be activated remotely via the systemctl command over SSH. Each .timer file requires a corresponding .service file. Adversaries can exploit systemd timers to run malicious code at startup or on a schedule for persistence. Timers placed in privileged paths can maintain root-level persistence, while user-level timers can provide user-level persistence. (.007) Container Orchestration Job: Container orchestration jobs automate tasks at specific times, similar to cron jobs on Linux. These jobs can be configured to maintain a set number of containers, helping persist within a cluster. In Kubernetes, a CronJob schedules a Job that runs containers to perform tasks. Adversaries can exploit CronJobs to deploy Jobs that execute malicious code across multiple nodes in a cluster. 11. T1648: Serverless Execution Cloud providers offer various serverless resources such as compute functions, integration services, and web-based triggers that adversaries can exploit to execute arbitrary commands, hijack resources, or deploy functions for further compromise. Cloud events can also trigger these serverless functions, potentially enabling persistent and stealthy execution over time. An example of this is Pacu, a well-known open-source AWS exploitation framework, which leverages serverless execution techniques. 12. T1229: Shared Modules Shared modules are executable components loaded into processes to provide access to reusable code, such as custom functions or Native API calls. Adversaries can abuse this mechanism to execute arbitrary payloads by modularizing their malware into shared objects that perform various malicious functions. On Linux and macOS, the module loader can load shared objects from any local path. On Windows, the loader can load DLLs from both local paths and Universal Naming Convention (UNC) network paths. 13. T1072: Software Deployment Tools Adversaries may exploit centralized management tools to execute commands and move laterally across enterprise networks. Access to endpoint or configuration management platforms can enable remote code execution, data collection, or destructive actions like wiping systems. SaaS-based configuration management tools can also extend this control to cloud-hosted instances and on-premises systems. Similarly, configuration tools used in network infrastructure devices may be abused in the same way. The level of access required for such activity depends on the system’s configuration and security posture. 14. T1569: System Services System services and daemons can be abused to execute malicious commands or programs, whether locally or remotely. Creating or modifying services allows execution of payloads for persistence—particularly if set to run at startup—or for temporary, one-time actions. (.001) Launchctl (MacOS): launchctl interacts with launchd, the service management framework for macOS. It supports running subcommands via the command line, interactively, or from standard input. Adversaries can use launchctl to execute commands and programs as Launch Agents or Launch Daemons, either through scripts or manual commands. (.002) Service Execution (Windows): The Windows Service Control Manager (services.exe) manages services and is accessible through both the GUI and system utilities. Tools like PsExec and sc.exe can be used for remote execution by specifying remote servers. Adversaries may exploit these tools to execute malicious content by starting new or modified services. This technique is often used for persistence or privilege escalation. (.003) Systemctl (Linux): systemctl is the main interface for systemd, the Linux init system and service manager. It is typically used from a shell but can also be integrated into scripts or applications. Adversaries may exploit systemctl to execute commands or programs as systemd services. 15. T1204: User Execution Users may be tricked into running malicious code by opening a harmful file or link, often through social engineering. While this usually happens right after initial access, it can occur at other stages of an attack. Adversaries might also deceive users to enable remote access tools, run malicious scripts, or coercing users to manually download and execute malware. Tech support scams often use phishing, vishing, and fake websites, with scammers spoofing numbers or setting up fake call centers to steal access or install malware. (.001) Malicious Link: Users may be tricked into clicking on a link that triggers code execution. This could also involve exploiting a browser or application vulnerability (Exploitation for Client Execution). Additionally, links might lead users to download files that, when executed, deliver malware file. (.002) Malicious File: Users may be tricked into opening a file that leads to code execution. Adversaries often use techniques like masquerading and obfuscating files to make them appear legitimate, increasing the chances that users will open and execute the malicious file. (.003) Malicious Image: Cloud images from platforms like AWS, GCP, and Azure, as well as popular container runtimes like Docker, can be backdoored. These compromised images may be uploaded to public repositories and users might unknowingly download and deploy an instance or container, bypassing Initial Access defenses. Adversaries may also use misleading names to increase the chances of users mistakenly deploying the malicious image. (.004) Malicious Copy and Paste: Users may be deceived into copying and pasting malicious code into a Command or Scripting Interpreter. Malicious websites might display fake error messages or CAPTCHA prompts, instructing users to open a terminal or the Windows Run Dialog and run arbitrary, often obfuscated commands. Once executed, the adversary can gain access to the victim's machine. Phishing emails may also be used to trick users into performing this action. 16. T1047: Windows Management Instrumentation WMI (Windows Management Instrumentation) is a tool designed for programmers, providing a standardized way to manage and access data on Windows systems. It serves as an administrative feature that allows interaction with system components. Adversaries can exploit WMI to interact with both local and remote systems, using it to perform actions such as gathering information for discovery or executing commands and payloads. How F5 can help? F5 security solutions like WAF (Web Application Firewall), API security, and DDoS mitigation protect the applications and APIs across platforms including Clouds, Edge, On-prem or Hybrid, thereby reducing security risks. F5 bot and risk management solutions can also stop bad bots and automation. This can make your modern applications safer. The example attacks mentioned under techniques can be effectively mitigated by F5 products like Distributed Cloud, BIG-IP and NGINX. Here are a few links which explain the mitigation steps. Mitigating Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) using F5 Advanced WAF Mitigating Struts2 RCE using F5 BIG-IP For more details on the other mitigation techniques of MITRE ATT&CK Execution Tactic TA0002, please reach out to your local F5 team. Reference Links: MITRE ATT&CK® Execution, Tactic TA0002 - Enterprise | MITRE ATT&CK® MITRE ATT&CK: What It Is, How it Works, Who Uses It and Why | F5 LabsNGINX App Protect v5 Signature Notifications
When working with NAP (NGINX App Protect) you don't have an easy way of knowing when any of the signatures are updated. As an old BigIP guy I find that rather strange. Here you have build-in automatic updates and notifications. Unfortunately there isn't any API's you can probe which would have been the best way of doing it. Hopefully it will come one day. However, "friction" and "hard" will not keep me from finding a solution 😆 I have previously made a solution for NAPv4 and I have tried mentally to get me going on a NAPv5 version. The reason for the delay is in the different way NAPv4 and NAPv5 are designed. Where NAPv4 is one module loaded in NGINX, NAPv5 is completely detached from NGINX (well almost, you still need to load a small module to get the traffic from NGINX to NAP) and only works with containers. NAPv5 has moved the signature "storage" from the actual host it is running on (e.g. an installed package) to the policy. This has the consequence that finding a valid "source of truth", for the latest signature versions, is not as simple as building a new image and see which versions got installed. There are very good reasons for this design that I will come back to later. When you fire up NAPv5 you got three containers for the data plane (NGINX, waf-enforcer and waf-config-mgr) and one for the "control plane" (waf-compiler). For this solution the "control plane" is the useful one. It isn't really a control plane but it gives a nice picture of how it is detached from the actual processing of traffic. When you update your signatures you are actually doing it through the waf-compiler. The waf-compiler is a container hosting the actual signature databases and every time a new verison is released you need to rebuild this container and compile your policies into a new version and reload NGINX. And this is what I take advantage of when I look for signature updates. It has the upside that you only need the waf-compiler to get the information you need. My solution will take care of the entire process and make sure that you are always running with the latest signatures. Back to the reason why the split of functions is a very good thing. When you build a new version of the NGINX image and deploy it into production, NAP needs to compile the policies as they load. During the compilation NGINX is not moving any traffic! This becomes a annoying problem even when you have a low number of policies. I have installations where it takes 5 to 10 minutes from deployment of the new image until it starts moving traffic. That is a crazy long time when you are used to working with micro-services and expect everything to flip within seconds. If you have your NAPv4 hooked up to a NGINX Instance Manager (NIM) the problem is somewhat mitigated as NIM will compile the policies before sending them to the gateways. NIM is not a nimble piece of software so it doesn't always fit into the environment. And now here is my hack to the notification problem: The solution consist of two bash scripts and one html template. The template is used when sending a notification mail. I wanted it to be pretty and that was easiest with html. Strictly speaking you could do with just a simple text based mail. Save all three in the same directory. The main script is called "waf_policy_auto_compile.sh"and is the one you put into crontab. The main script will build a new waf-compiler image and compile a test policy. The outcome of that is information about what versions are the newest. It will then extract versions from an old policy and simply see if any of the versions differ. For this to work you need to have an uncompiled policy (you can just use the default one) and a compiled version of it ready beforehand. When a diff has been identified the notification logic is executed and a second script is called: "compile_waf_policies.sh". It basically just trawls through the directory of you policies and logging profiles and compiles a new version of them all. It is not necessary to recompile the logging profiles, so this will probably change in the next version. As the compilation completes the main script will nudge NGINX to reload thus implement all the new versions. You can run "waf_policy_auto_compile.sh" with a verbose flag (-v) and a debug flag (-d). The verbose flag is intended to be used when you run it on a terminal and want the information displayed there. Debug is, well, for debug 😝 The construction of the scripts are based on my own needs but they should be easy to adjust for any need. I will be happy for any feedback, so please don't hold back 😄F5 NGINX Plus R33 Licensing and Usage Reporting
Beginning with F5 NGINX Plus version R33, all customers are required to deploy a JSON Web Token (JWT) license for each commercial instance of NGINX Plus. Each instance is responsible for validating its own license status. Furthermore, NGINX Plus will report usage either to the F5 NGINX licensing endpoint or to the F5 NGINX Instance Manager for customers who are connected. For those customers who are disconnected or operate in an air-gapped environment, usage can be reported directly to the F5 NGINX Instance Manager. To learn more about the latest features of NGINX R33, please check out the recent blog post. Install or Upgrade NGINX Plus R33 To successfully upgrade to NGINX Plus R33 or perform a fresh installation, begin by downloading the JWT license from your F5 account. Once you have the license, place it in the F5 NGINX directory before proceeding with the upgrade. For a fresh installation, after completing the installation, also place the JWT license in the NGINX directory. For further details, please refer to the provided instructions. This video provides a step-by-step guide on installing or upgrading to NGINX Plus R33. Report Usage to F5 in Connected Environment To effectively report usage data to F5 within a connected environment using NGINX Instance Manager, it's important to ensure that port 443 is open. The default configuration directs the usage endpoint to send reports directly to the F5 licensing endpoint at product.connect.nginx.com. By default, usage reporting is enabled, and it's crucial to successfully send at least one report on installation for NGINX to process traffic. However, you can postpone the initial reporting requirement by turning off the directive in your NGINX configuration. This allows NGINX Plus to handle traffic without immediate reporting during a designated grace period. To configure usage reporting to F5 using NGINX Instance Manager, update the usage endpoint to reflect the fully qualified domain name (FQDN) of the NGINX Instance Manager. For further details, please refer to the provided instructions. This video shows how to report usage in the connected environment using NGINX Instance Manager. Report Usage to F5 in Disconnected Environment using NGINX Instance Manager In a disconnected environment without an internet connection, you need to take certain steps before submitting usage data to F5. First, in NGINX Plus R33, update the `usage report` directive within the management block of your NGINX configuration to point to your NGINX Instance Manager host. Ensure that your NGINX R33 instances can access the NGINX Instance Manager by setting up the necessary DNS entries. Next, in the NMS configuration in NGINX Instance Manager, modify the ‘mode of operation’ to disconnected, save the file, and restart NGINX Instance Manager. There are multiple methods available for adding a license and submitting the initial usage report in this disconnected environment. You can use a Bash script, REST API, or the web interface. For detailed instructions on each method, please refer to the documentation. This video shows how to report usage in disconnected environments using NGINX Instance Manager. Conclusion The transition to NGINX Plus R33 introduces important enhancements in licensing and usage reporting that can greatly improve your management of NGINX instances. With the implementation of JSON Web Tokens (JWT), you can validate your subscription and report telemetry data more effectively. To ensure compliance and optimize performance, it’s crucial to understand the best practices for usage reporting, regardless of whether you are operating in a connected or disconnected environment. Get started today with a 30-day trial, and contact us if you have any questions. Resources NGINX support documentation Blog announcement providing a comprehensive summary of the new features in this release.
URL Redirect ? URL ReWrite ?
im still on my journey leanring nginx so forgive the stupid question. my goal is as follows: i want my clients to be able to browse to https://www.john.com/Greenlight in the clients browser i dont want the above to change, but i want to get the page load to populate actually from here. https://dev-assets.john.net/cdn/html2canvas/1.4.1/license.html i tried this, but its not working.. i think im close..but maybe not.. ############################################################ Greenlight redirect location /Greenlight { rewrite ^/Greenlight(/.*)$ $1 break; rewrite ^/Greenlight$ / break; proxy_pass https://dev-assets.john.net/cdn/html2canvas/1.4.1; proxy_set_header Host john-assets.alkami.net; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto $scheme; try_files $uri $uri/ /license.html; } im thinking maybe i need a re-write statement... any guidance would be apprecited.Mitigating OWASP 2019 API Security Top 10 risks using F5 NGINX App Protect
This 2019 API Security article provides a valuable summary of the OWASP API Security Top 10 risks identified for that year, outlining key vulnerabilities. We will deep-dive into some of those common risks and how we can protect our applications against these vulnerabilities using F5 NGINX App Protect. API2:2019 - Broken User Authentication Problem Statement: A critical API security risk, Broken Authentication occurs when weaknesses in the API's identity verification process permit attackers to circumvent authentication mechanisms. Successful exploitation leads attackers to impersonate legitimate users, gain unauthorized access to sensitive data, perform actions on behalf of victims, and potentially take over accounts or systems. This demonstration utilizes the Damn Vulnerable Web Application (DVWA) to illustrate the exploitability of Broken Authentication. We will execute a brute-force attack against the login interface, iterating through potential credential pairs to achieve unauthorized authentication. Below is the selenium automated script to execute brute-force attack, submitting multiple credential combinations to attempt authentication. The brute-force attack successfully compromised the authentication controls by iterating through multiple credential pairs, ultimately granting access. Solution: To mitigate the above vulnerability, NGINX App Protect is deployed and configured as reverse proxy in front of the application and requests are first validated by NAP for the vulnerabilities. The NGINX App Protect Brute Force WAF policy is utilized as shown below. Re-attempt to gain access to the application using the brute force approach is rejected and blocked. Support ID verification in the Security logs shows request is blocked because of Brute Force Policy. Request captured in NGINX App Protect security log API3:2019 - Excessive Data Exposure Problem Statement: As shown below in one of the demo application API’s, Personal Identifiable Information (PII) data, like Credit Card Numbers (CCN) and U.S. Social Security Numbers (SSN), are visible in responses that are highly sensitive. So, we must hide these details to prevent personal data exploits. Solution: To prevent this vulnerability, we will use the DataGuard feature in NGINX App Protect, which validates all response data for sensitive details and will either mask the data or block those requests, as per the configured settings. First, we will configure DataGuard to mask the PII data as shown below and will apply this configuration. Next, if we resend the same request, we can see that the CCN/SSN numbers are masked, thereby preventing data breaches. If needed, we can update configurations to block this vulnerability after which all incoming requests for this endpoint will be blocked. If you open the security log and filter with this support ID, we can see that the request is either blocked or PII data is masked, as per the DataGuard configuration applied in the above section. Request captured in NGINX App Protect security log API4:2019 - Lack of Resources & Rate Limiting Problem Statement: APIs do not have any restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be requested by the end user. Above mentioned scenarios sometimes lead to poor API server performance, Denial of Service (DoS), and brute force attacks. Solution: NGINX App Protect provides different ways to rate limit the requests as per user requirements. A simple rate limiting use case configuration is able to block requests after reaching the limit, which is demonstrated below. API6:2019 - Mass Assignment Problem Statement: API Mass Assignment vulnerability arises when clients can modify immutable internal object properties via crafted requests, bypassing API Endpoint restrictions. Attackers exploit this by sending malicious HTTP requests to escalate privileges, bypass security mechanisms, or manipulate the API Endpoint's functionality. Placing an order with quantity as 1: Bypassing API Endpoint restrictions and placing the order with quantity as -1 is also successful. Solution: To overcome this vulnerability, we will use the WAF API Security Policy in NGINX App Protect which validates all the API Security event triggered and based on the enforcement mode set in the validation rules, the request will either get reported or blocked, as shown below. Restricted/updated swagger file with .json extension is added as below: Policy used: App Protect API Security Re-attempting to place the order with quantity as -1 is getting blocked. Validating the support ID in Security log as below: Request captured in NGINX App Protect security log API7:2019 - Security Misconfiguration Problem Statement: Security misconfiguration occurs when security best practices are neglected, leading to vulnerabilities like exposed debug logs, outdated security patches, improper CORS settings, unnecessary allowed HTTP methods, etc. To prevent this, systems must stay up to date with security patches, employ continuous hardening, ensure API communications use secure channels (TLS), etc. Example: Unnecessary HTTP methods/verbs represent a significant security misconfiguration under the OWASP API Top 10. APIs often expose a range of HTTP methods (such as PUT, DELETE, PATCH) that are not required for the application's functionality. These unused methods, if not properly disabled, can provide attackers with additional attack surfaces, increasing the risk of unauthorized access or unintended actions on the server. Properly limiting and configuring allowed HTTP methods is essential for reducing the potential impact of such security vulnerabilities. Let’s dive into a demo application which has exposed “PUT” method., this method is not required as per the design and attackers can make use of this insecure unintended method to modify the original content. Solution: NGINX App Protect makes it easy to block unnecessary or risky HTTP methods by letting you customize which methods are allowed. By easily configuring a policy to block unauthorized methods, like disabling the PUT method by setting "$action": "delete", you can reduce potential security risks and strengthen your API protection with minimal effort. As shown below the attack request is captured in security log which conveys the request was successfully blocked, because of “Illegal method” violation. Request captured in NGINX App Protect security log API8:2019 - Injection Problem Statement: Customer login pages without secure coding practices may have flaws. Intruders could use those flaws to exploit credential validation using different types of injections, like SQLi, command injections, etc. In our demo application, we have found an exploit which allows us to bypass credential validation using SQL injection (by using username as “' OR true --” and any password), thereby getting administrative access, as below: Solution: NGINX App Protect has a database of signatures that match this type of SQLi attacks. By configuring the WAF policy in blocking mode, NGINX App Protect can identify and block this attack, as shown below. App Protect WAF Policy If you check in the security log with this support ID, we can see that request is blocked because of SQL injection risk, as below. Request captured in NGINX App Protect security log API9:2019 - Improper Assets Management Problem Statement: Improper Asset Management in API security signifies the crucial risk stemming from an incomplete awareness and tracking of an organization's full API landscape, including all environments like development and staging, different versions, both internal and external endpoints, and undocumented or "shadow" APIs. This lack of comprehensive inventory leads to an expanded and often unprotected attack surface, as security measures cannot be consistently applied to unknown or unmanaged assets. Consequently, attackers can exploit these overlooked endpoints, potentially find older, less secure versions or access sensitive data inadvertently exposed in non-production environments, thereby undermining overall security posture because you simply cannot protect assets you don't know exist. We’re using a flask database application with multiple API endpoints for demonstration. As part of managing API assets, the “/v1/admin/users” endpoint in the demo Flask application has been identified as obsolete. The continued exposure of the deprecated “/v1/admin/users” endpoint constitutes an Improper Asset Management vulnerability, creating an unnecessary security exposure that could be leveraged for exploitation. <public_ip>/v1/admin/users The current endpoint for user listing is “/v2/users”. <public_ip>/v2/users with user as admin1 Solution: To mitigate the above vulnerability, we are using NGINX as an API Gateway. The API Gateway acts as a filtering gateway for API incoming traffic, controlling, securing, and routing requests before they reach the backend services. The server’s name used for the above case is “f1-api” which is listening to the public IP where our application is running. To query the “/v1/admin/users” endpoint, use the curl command as shown below. Below is the configuration for NGINX as API Gateway, in “api_gateway.conf”, where “/v1/admin/users” endpoint is deprecated. The “api_json_errors.conf” is configured with error responses as shown below and included in the above “api_gateway.conf”. Executing the curl command against the endpoint yields an “HTTP 301 Moved Permanently” response. https://f1-api/v1/admin/users is deprecated API10:2019 - Insufficient Logging & Monitoring Problem Statement: Appropriate logging and monitoring solutions play a pivotal role in identifying attacks and also in finding the root cause for any security issues. Without these solutions, applications are fully exposed to attackers and SecOps is completely blind to identifying details of users and resources being accessed. Solution: NGINX provides different options to track logging details of applications for end-to-end visibility of every request both from a security and performance perspective. Users can change configurations as per their requirements and can also configure different logging mechanisms with different levels. Check the links below for more details on logging: https://www.nginx.com/blog/logging-upstream-nginx-traffic-cdn77/ https://www.nginx.com/blog/modsecurity-logging-and-debugging/ https://www.nginx.com/blog/using-nginx-logging-for-application-performance-monitoring/ https://docs.nginx.com/nginx/admin-guide/monitoring/logging/ https://docs.nginx.com/nginx-app-protect-waf/logging-overview/logs-overview/ Conclusion: In short, this article covered some common API vulnerabilities and shows how NGINX App Protect can be used as a mitigation solution to prevent these OWASP API security risks. Related resources for more information or to get started: F5 NGINX App Protect OWASP API Security Top 10 2019 OWASP API Security Top 10 2023Overview of MITRE ATT&CK Framework and Initial Access Tactic (TA0001)
Introduction to MITRE ATT&CK: In today’s modern world, cyber threats are becoming more and more sophisticated, causing an urgent need for organizations across the world to understand how adversaries operate, so that they can protect their digital assets from being compromised. MITRE ATT&CK (Adversarial Tactics, Techniques and Common Knowledge) framework acts as a helpful resource for security teams in organizations to identify and analyze the attack patterns, techniques and tactics used to achieve exploitation. It is a globally accepted, continually updated and publicly available framework based on real-world observations of the latest cyber attacks. It keeps track of APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) groups and TTPs (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures) to provide guidance on procedures followed by the adversaries to compromise an organization’s resources. It is widely used in the cybersecurity field to improve security measures for organizations by enhancing their defensive capabilities. Here are some key words to be familiarized with before we dive deeper. APT (Advanced Persistent Threat): These are advanced groups of cyber attackers, heavily backed and funded to perform cyber-attack campaigns for a long period of time without getting detected. TTPs (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures): Tactics: It deals with the objective and goal of attackers Techniques: It deals with how attackers are going to accomplish their objective Sub-Techniques: It provides a more granular detail about the implementation of a specific technique Procedures: It deals with the implementation of techniques or sub-techniques to attain the objective. The current version of Enterprise ATT&CK matrix includes 14 tactics with each tactic containing multiple techniques and sub-techniques. Below are the tactics included in Enterprise matrix with their brief overview: TA0043 Reconnaissance: Gather information about the target. TA0042 Resource Development: Accumulate and prepare resources to carry out attacks. TA0001 Initial Access: Infiltrate into the target’s infra or network or system. TA0002 Execution: Run malicious code on victim’s system. TA0003 Persistence: Maintain access to the compromised system. TA0004 Privilege Escalation: Elevate privileges to access more sensitive information. TA0005 Defense Evasion: Bypass security detections. TA0006 Credential access: Steal credentials. TA0007 Discovery: Learn more about the compromised system’s environment. TA0008 Lateral Movement: Hop to other system’s connected in the same network. TA0009 Collection: Gather sensitive information. TA0011 Command and Control: Establish remote communication with compromised system. TA0010 Exfiltration: Steal data from the compromised system. TA0040 Impact: Destruction or manipulation of data or system, making it unavailable for victim Introduction to Initial Access Tactic (TA0001): As the name explains, Initial access means gaining access to the network. Initial Access tactic provides all the possible techniques used by adversaries to gain access and enter a network. This is a crucial phase in the attack lifecycle as the attacker looks for an entry point to step their foot into the network. Successful initial access can open the door to a wide range of exploitations like privilege escalation, confidential data theft and much more. Let us now quickly go through the techniques that fall under Initial Access and understand them. 1. Content Injection (T1659): Content Injection is a web application vulnerability where an attacker tries to manipulate and inject malicious content into a web page through a vulnerable endpoint within the application. Attackers can inject any type of content like harmful HTML, JavaScript or alter the existing content on the web page, which could lead to harmful consequences. Ideally, this type of attack takes place upon user interactions (click, enter data, submit a form). Example: File inclusion or upload 2. Drive-by Compromise (T1189): Using Drive-by compromise technique, the adversary typically tries to compromise the victim’s browser through a malicious or compromised website. Attackers inject malicious code such as malware, ransomware or exploit kits into the web page, which is then automatically executed when the victim visits the page without their knowledge or interaction. Example: Cross-Site Scripting 3. Exploit Public-Facing Applications (T1190): In this technique, attackers attempt to exploit vulnerabilities in publicly accessible web applications, web servers, or databases to gain access to a network. Vulnerability in the application, security misconfigurations, inadequate access control mechanisms, or the use of outdated or unpatched software are some of the possible reasons for these attacks. Such weaknesses provide attackers the opportunity to gain unauthorized access, escalate privileges, or compromise sensitive data. Example: SQL Injection 4. External Remote Services (T1133): Adversaries target to enter an organization’s network by exploiting weaknesses in external sources like VPNs, Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), Citrix, Cloud Services, external file sharing and others that allow remote access to the internal systems. Lack of proper authentication mechanisms, access control, VPN misconfiguration and usage of insecure connections lay the path to this type of attack. 5. Hardware Additions (T1200): In this technique, the attacker exploits the target system/network by connecting new hardware, networking devices or other computing devices to gain access. Attackers can use USB keyloggers to capture keystrokes and steal credentials or can use routers/switches/passive network tapping/network traffic modification that can intercept or control networks. As this technique involves physical hardware, it provides persistent access to the attacker even if the software’s defenses are intact. 6. Phishing (T1566): Phishing is a technique in which attackers exploit an individual/organization by sending deceptive emails, texts, files that appear to be from trusted and legitimate sources. Attackers craft and design the content to trick users into clicking malicious links, downloading attachments, or revealing personal sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, or financial details. A more targeted form of phishing is called Spearphishing. (.001) Spearphishing Attachment: This is a type of phishing in which an attacker sends an email or text with malicious files attached to them, such as executable files, PDFs, or Word Documents. When a user opens/downloads an attachment, a malicious payload will be injected into the system. (.002) Spearphishing Link: Here, adversaries send emails or texts with malicious links in it that look legitimate. When a user clicks or copy and pastes the URL into a browser, it can download the malicious content into the system or sometimes, the users are tricked into entering their personal information like credentials, bank details, Unique Identity numbers. (.003) Spearphishing via Service: Here, adversaries use third party online services or platforms like social media services, personal web mail as the source to conduct their phishing attack. (.004) Spearphishing Voice : Here, an attacker compromises a victim with voice communication. The attacker pretends to be a person from trusted organizations such as banks or government officials and tricks the victims into revealing sensitive information over the phone. 7. Replication Through Removable Media (T1091): Replication through removable media is a technique in which adversaries use removable media like USB drives, external hard disks to spread malicious payloads and also to replicate the malware between systems. Sometimes, malicious code can automatically execute when the device is plugged in if the system has autoplay or autorun enabled, or the attacker might rely on user interaction to run the malicious payload. 8. Supply Chain Compromise (T1195): In Supply Chain Compromise, an adversary targets and compromises a company’s supply chain such as suppliers, vendors, or third-party service providers before receipt by the end customer. Attackers can introduce malicious elements into Software updates, hardware or Dependent sources before its delivery. (.001) Compromise Software Dependencies and Development Tools: Here, an adversary tries to manipulate the third-party open-source software system, development tools or service providers that are being used by the organization. (.002) Compromise Software Supply Chain: Attacker manipulates software updates, libraries, or repository used for distributing software before it reaches out to the final customer. This compromised patch will be unknowingly installed by the organization when they update or install software. (.003) Compromise Hardware Supply Chain: Here, an attacker manipulates hardware components or devices before they reach the end-user. Once the device is installed within an organization, it provides a persistent backdoor for attackers. Example: Insecure Deserialization, log4j 9. Trusted Relationship (T1199): In Trusted Relationship technique, adversaries exploit the relationship between the target organization and their partners, vendors, or internal users to gain access. Adversaries focus the trusted entities and leverage them as sources of attack because these entities are typically subjected to less stringent scrutiny and may have elevated permissions to critical systems within the target organization, which adversaries can exploit to carry out their attack. Example: Unsafe Consumption of APIs 10. Valid Accounts (T1078): The Valid Accounts technique is one of the most common methods adversaries use to gain unauthorized access to systems by exploiting legitimate credentials. Attackers attempt to use stolen credentials or guessed passwords to gain access to the systems, leveraging the compromised or weak credentials as this can bypass security mechanisms, gain persistent and privileged access. Example: Brute Force (.001) Default Accounts: Here, adversaries try to exploit credentials of default accounts like Guest or Administrator accounts. Default accounts also include factory/provider set accounts on other types of systems, software, or devices, including the root user account in AWS and the default service account in Kubernetes. Failing to change the credentials provided for default accounts exposes the organization to high security risks. (.002) Domain Accounts: Here, adversaries exploit user or system credentials that are part of a domain. Domain accounts are managed by Active Directory Domain Services, where access and permissions are set across systems and services within the domain. (.003) Local Accounts: Adversaries exploit the credentials of local accounts. Local accounts are typically configured by an organization for use by users, remote support services, or for administrative tasks on individual systems or services. (.004) Cloud Accounts: Adversaries exploit valid credentials of cloud accounts to access cloud-based services and infrastructure. As organizations increasingly rely on cloud environments such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, and other cloud platforms, adversaries target cloud accounts to exploit resources, steal data, or perform further malicious activities within the cloud environment. How F5 can help? F5 security solutions like WAF (Web Application Firewall), API security, and DDoS mitigation protect the applications and APIs across platforms including Clouds, Edge, On-prem or Hybrid thereby reducing security risks. In addition to the above solutions, F5 bot and risk management solutions effectively mitigate malicious bots and automation, which can enhance the security posture of your modern applications. The example attacks mentioned under techniques can be effectively mitigated by F5 products like Distributed Cloud, BIG-IP and NGINX. Here are a few links which explain the mitigation steps. Mitigating Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) using F5 Advanced WAF Mitigating Injection flaws using F5 Distributed Cloud Mitigating Log4j vulnerability using F5 Distributed Cloud Mitigating SQL injection using F5 NGINX App Protect For more details on the other mitigation techniques of MITRE ATT&CK Initial Access Tactic TA0001, please reach out to your local F5 team. NOTE: This is the first article in MITRE series and stay tuned for more tactics-related articles. Reference Links: MITRE ATT&CK® Initial Access, Tactic TA0001 - Enterprise | MITRE ATT&CK® MITRE ATT&CK: What It Is, How it Works, Who Uses It and Why | F5 LabsF5 NGINX Automation Examples [Part 1-Deploy F5 NGINX Ingress Controller with App ProtectV5 ]
Introduction: Welcome to our initial article on F5 NGINX automation use cases, where we aim to provide deeper insights into the strategies and benefits of implementing NGINX solutions. This series uses the NGINX Automation Examples GitHub repo and CI/CD platform to deploy NGINX solutions based on DevSecOps principles. Our focus will specifically address the integration of NGINX with Terraform, two powerful tools that enhance application delivery and support infrastructure as code. Stay tuned for additional use cases that will be presented in the upcoming content! In this detailed example, we will demonstrate how to deploy an F5 NGINX Ingress Controller with the F5 NGINX App Protect version 5 in the AWS, GCP, and Azure Cloud. We will utilize Terraform to set up an AWS Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS) cluster that hosts the Arcadia Finance test web application. The NGINX Ingress Controller will manage this application for Kubernetes and will have security measures provided by the NGINX App Protect version 5. To streamline the deployment process, we will integrate GitHub Actions for continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) while using an Amazon S3 bucket to manage the state of our Terraform configurations. Prerequisites: F5 NGINX One License AWS Account - Due to the assets being created, the free tier will not work GitHub Account Tools Cloud Provider: AWS Infrastructure as Code: Terraform Infrastructure as Code State: S3 CI/CD: GitHub Action NGINX Ingress Controller: This solution provides comprehensive management for API gateways, load balancers, and Kubernetes Ingress Controllers, enhancing security and visibility in hybrid and multicloud environments, particularly at the edge of Kubernetes clusters. Consolidating technology streamlines operations and reduces the complexity of using multiple tools. NGINX App Protect WAF v5: A lightweight software security solution designed to deliver high performance and low latency. It supports platform-agnostic deployment, making it suitable for modern microservices and container-based applications. This version integrates both NGINX and Web Application Firewall (WAF) components within a single pod, making it particularly well-suited for scalable, cloud-native environments. Module 1: Deploy NGINX Ingress Controller with App Protect V5 in AWS Cloud Workflow Guides: Deploy NGINX Ingress Controller with App ProtectV5 in AWS Cloud Architecture Diagram Module 2: Deploy NGINX Ingress Controller with App Protect V5 in GCP Cloud Workflow Guides: Deploy NGINX Ingress Controller with App Protect V5 in GCP Cloud Architecture Diagram Module 3: Deploy NGINX Ingress Controller with App Protect V5 in Azure Workflow Guides: Deploy NGINX Ingress Controller with App Protect V5 in Azure Architecture Diagram Conclusion This article outlines deploying a robust security framework using the NGINX Ingress Controller and NGINX App Protect WAF version 5 for a sample web application hosted on AWS EKS. We leveraged the NGINX Automation Examples Repository and integrated it into a CI/CD pipeline for streamlined deployment. Although the provided code and security configurations are foundational and may not cover every possible scenario, they serve as a valuable starting point for implementing NGINX Ingress Controller and NGINX App Protect version 5 in your cloud environments.Mitigating OWASP Web Application Security Top 10 risks using F5 NGINX App Protect
The OWASP Web Application Security Top 10 outlines the most critical security risks to web applications, serving as a global standard for understanding and mitigating vulnerabilities. Based on data from over 500,000 real-world applications, the list highlights prevalent security issues. The 2021 edition introduces new categories such as "Insecure Design" and "Software and Data Integrity Failures" emphasizing secure design principles and proactive security throughout the software development lifecycle. For more information please visit: OWASP Web Application Security Top 10 - 2021 F5 products provide controls to secure applications against these risks. F5 NGINX App Protect offers security controls using both positive and negative security models to protect applications from OWASP Top 10 risks. The positive security model combines validated user sessions, user input, and application response, while the negative security model uses attack signatures to detect and block OWASP Top 10 application security threats. This guide outlines how to implement effective protection based on the specific needs of your application. Note - The OWASP Web Application Security Top 10 risks listed below are tested on both F5 NGINX App Protect versions 4.x and 5.x A01:2021-Broken Access Control Problem statement: As the risk name suggests, Broken Access Control refers to failures in access control mechanisms that lead to a vulnerable application. In this demonstration, the application is susceptible to “Directory/Path Traversal” via the URL, which allows unauthorized access to sensitive information stored on the server. Solution: F5 NGINX App Protect WAF(Web Application Firewall) offers an inherent solution to the “Directory/Path Traversal” vulnerability discussed, through its “app_protect_default_policy” bundle. This policy, which will be active by default when “App Protect” is enabled in the nginx configuration, helps prevent Directory/Path Traversal attacks by validating the values provided to the “page” key in URL. The attack request is recorded in the security log, indicating that the attack type is Predictable Resource Location, Path Traversal. The request was blocked, and the signatures responsible for detecting the attack are also visible. Note: The security log shown in the image below is not the default log configuration but has been customized by following the instructions provided in the link. A02:2021-Cryptographic Failures Problem statement: Earlier this attack was known as “Sensitive Data Exposure”, focusing on cryptographic failures that often result in the exposure of sensitive data. The “Juice Shop” demo application, as demonstrated below, is vulnerable to sensitive information disclosure due to the insecure storage of data, which is displayed in plain text to end users. Solution: F5 NGINX App Protect WAF provides best in class “Data Guard” policy, which can block as well as mask (based on policy configuration) sensitive information displayed to the end users. After applying the policy to mask the sensitive data, it’s observed the sensitive information which was visible(Fig. 2.1) is masked now. The attack request is recorded in the security log, indicating that the dataguard_mask policy is triggered, and the request was alerted. . 2.4 – Request captured in NGINX App Protect security log A03:2021-Injection Problem statement: An injection vulnerability arises when an application fails to properly handle user-supplied data, sending it to an interpreter (e.g., a database or operating system) as part of a query or command. Without proper validation, filtering, or sanitization, attackers can inject malicious code, leading to unauthorized access, data breaches, privilege escalation, or system compromise. For example, the DVWA demo application shown below lacks input validation, making it vulnerable to SQL injection attacks that can compromise confidential data. Solution: F5 NGINX App Protect WAF has a robust set of attack signatures which are pre-bundled in default policy. The SQL-Injection vulnerability discussed above can be prevented by enabling App Protect which has around 1000+ signatures related to variety of Injection attacks. The attack request is recorded in the security log, indicating that the attack type is SQL-Injection. The request was blocked, and the signatures responsible for detecting the attack are also visible. A04:2021-Insecure Design Problem statement: The growing reliance on web applications exposes them to security risks, with insecure design being a key concern. For example, a retail chain’s e-commerce website lacks protection against bots used by scalpers to buy high-end video cards in bulk for resale. This causes negative publicity and frustrates genuine customers. Implementing anti-bot measures and domain logic rules can help block fraudulent transactions, with F5 NGINX App Protect providing effective protection against such attacks. Solution: Secure design is an ongoing process that continuously evaluates threats, ensures robust code, and integrates threat modeling into development. It involves constant validation, accurate flow analysis, and thorough documentation. By using F5 NGINX App Protect WAF, which includes bot defense, web applications can effectively prevent bot-driven attacks, identifying and blocking them early to protect against fraudulent transactions. The attack request is recorded in the security log, indicating that the attack type is Non-browser Client. The request was blocked, and the violation stating “VIOL_BOT_CLIENT”. Note: The security log shown in the image below is the default log configuration Request captured in NGINX App Protect security log A05:2021-Security Misconfiguration Problem statement: Security misconfiguration occurs when security settings are improperly configured, exposing web applications to various threats. One such vulnerability is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), where attackers trick authenticated users into making unauthorized requests. Without proper protection mechanisms, attackers can exploit this misconfiguration to perform malicious actions on behalf of the user. The demonstration using WebGoat below shows how an improperly configured application becomes vulnerable to CSRF, allowing attackers to carry out unauthorized actions. Execute the above malicious script by copying the file path and pasting in new tab of the WebGoat authenticated browser. The script will automatically load the malicious code and redirects to the vulnerable page. Solution: F5 NGINX App Protect WAF provides a comprehensive support against CSRF attack. Users can configure the CSRF policy based on their requirements by following the configuration settings here. In this demonstration, default CSRF policy is used to block the attack. Default CSRF policy used to block CSRF attacks The security log captures the attack request, identifying the type of attack which is CSRF. The request was successfully blocked, and the violations saying “CSRF attack detected” is also visible. A06:2021-Vulnerable and Outdated Components Problem statement: Vulnerable and Outdated Components risk arises when a web application uses third-party libraries or software with known security vulnerabilities that are not updated. Additionally, vulnerable pages like “phpmyadmin.php” that expose sensitive details—such as application versions, user credentials, and database information—further increase the risk. Attackers can use this information to exploit known vulnerabilities or gain unauthorized access, leading to potential data breaches or system compromise. Solution: The vulnerability discussed above can be mitigated using F5 NGINX App Protect WAF Attack Signatures, which includes specific "Signature ID" for various vulnerabilities. These Signature IDs can be incorporated into the policy file to block attacks. For instance, Signature ID 200000014 can be used to block access to phpmyadmin.php page. Attack signatures can be found here. The attack request is recorded in the security log, indicating that the attack type is Predictable Resource Location. The request was blocked, and the signatures responsible for detecting the “/phpmyadmin/ page” attack are also visible. A07:2021-Identification and Authentication Failures Problem statement: Effective authentication and secure session management are crucial in preventing authentication-related vulnerabilities in daily tasks. Applications with weak authentication mechanisms are vulnerable to automated attacks, such as credential stuffing, where attackers use wordlists to perform spray attacks, allowing attackers to determine whether specific credentials are valid, thus increasing the risk of brute-force and other automated attacks. Brute force attacks are attempts to break in to secured areas of a web application by trying exhaustive, systematic, username/password combinations to discover legitimate authentication credentials. Solution: To prevent brute force attacks, F5 NGINX App Protect WAF monitors IP addresses, usernames, and the number of failed login attempts beyond a maximum threshold. When brute force patterns are detected, the F5 NGINX App Protect WAF policy either trigger an alarm or block the attack if the failed login attempts reached a maximum threshold for a specific username or coming from a specific IP address. Note – Brute force attack prevention is supported starting from versions v4.13 and v5.5 The security log captures the attack request, identifying the type of attack as Brute Force Attack. The request was successfully blocked, and the “VIOL_BRUTE_FORCE” violations is also visible. A08:2021-Software and Data Integrity Failures Problem statement: Added as a new entry in the OWASP Top 10 2021, software and data integrity failures, particularly in the context of insecure deserialization, occur when an application deserializes untrusted data without proper validation or security checks. This vulnerability allows attackers to modify or inject malicious data into the deserialization process, potentially leading to remote code execution, privilege escalation, or data manipulation. In this demonstration, a serialized PHP command O:18:"PHPObjectInjection":1:{s:6:"inject";s:18:"system ('ps -ef');";} is passed in the URL to retrieve the running processes. Solution: F5 NGINX App Protect WAF can prevent Serialization Injection PHP attacks by leveraging its default policy bundle, which includes an extensive set of signatures specifically designed to address deserialization vulnerabilities. The security log captures the attack request, identifying the type of attack. The request was successfully blocked, and the signatures used to detect the 'PHP Short Object Serialization Injection' attack are also visible. A09:2021-Security Logging and Monitoring Failures Problem statement: Security logging and monitoring failures occur when critical application activities such as logins, transactions, and user actions are not adequately logged or monitored. This lack of visibility makes it difficult to detect and respond to security breaches, attack attempts, or suspicious user behavior. Without proper logging and monitoring, attackers can exploit vulnerabilities without detection, potentially leading to data loss, revenue impact, or reputational damage. Insufficient logging also hinders the ability to escalate and mitigate security incidents effectively, making the application more vulnerable to exploitation. Solution: F5 NGINX App Protect WAF provides different options to track logging details of applications for end-to-end visibility of every request both from a security and performance perspective. Users can change configurations as per their requirements and can also configure different logging mechanisms with different levels. Check the links below for more details on logging: Version 4 and earlier Version 5 A10:2021-Server-Side Request Forgery Problem statement: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) occurs when a web application fetches a remote resource without properly validating the user-supplied URL. This vulnerability allows attackers to manipulate the application into sending malicious requests to internal systems or external resources, bypassing security measures like firewalls or VPNs. SSRF attacks can expose sensitive internal data or resources that are not meant to be publicly accessible, making them a significant security risk, especially with modern cloud architectures. In this demonstration, patient health records, which should be accessible only within the network, can be retrieved publicly through SSRF. Solution: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attacks can be prevented by utilizing the default policy bundle of F5 NGINX App Protect WAF, which includes a comprehensive set of signatures designed to detect and mitigate SSRF vulnerabilities. By enabling App Protect, you gain strong defense against SSRF attacks as well as other prevalent security threats, thanks to the default policy's pre-configured signatures that cover a wide range of attack vectors. The security log captures the attack request, identifying the type of attack. The request was successfully blocked, and the signatures used to detect the 'SSRF' attack are also visible. Request captured in NGINX App Protect security log Conclusion: Protecting applications from attacks is simple with F5 NGINX App Protect WAF, a high-performance, lightweight, and platform-agnostic solution that supports diverse deployment options, from edge load balancers to Kubernetes clusters. By leveraging its advanced security controls, organizations can effectively mitigate the OWASP Web Application Security Top 10 risks, ensuring robust protection across distributed architectures and hybrid environments. Ultimately, F5 NGINX App Protect helps strengthen overall security, providing comprehensive defense for modern applications. References: F5 NGINX App Protect WAF OWASP Top 10 - 2021 F5 NGINX App Protect WAF Documentation F5 Attack Signatures
