Pen Test - Cloud-Fi v1.0
Pen Test - Cloud-Fi v1.0
Pen Test - Cloud-Fi v1.0
Analysis of 2023-10-17
Dominik Lang
ditis Systeme, Ulm
Confidential
Revision History
Revision Date Author Comment
2023-10-17
Performance of the penetration test and documentation of re-
0.1 - DLA
sults
2023-10-25
0.9 2023-11-06 BOB Review
1.0 2023-11-07 RST Approval
This report has been assembled with great care and according to the guidelines of the German Federal
Agency for Security in Information Technology (BSI) for performing penetration tests and in compliance
with the requirements of the international security norm ISO/IEC 27001.
Table of contents
1 Objective ......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Subject of the Test ................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Credentials Used ................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Altered Data ........................................................................................................................... 4
2 Testing Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Test Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Classification of the Penetration Test .................................................................................... 5
2.3 Tools Used............................................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Systems Used........................................................................................................................ 6
2.5 Legend ................................................................................................................................... 6
3 Results of the Analysis ................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Overview of the Detected Vulnerabilities ............................................................................... 8
3.2 Vulnerability by System ......................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Vulnerabilities According to their implementation Status ...................................................... 9
4 Specific Measures........................................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Guest Network ..................................................................................................................... 10
95.216.183.62/32,
Systems used for manual and automated tests.
2.5 Legend
Rating Description
Vulnerabilities which enable a potential attack, and which should be immedi-
High
ately eliminated.
Vulnerabilities which do not require an immediate action and should be
Medium
changed or eliminated depending on the case in hand.
Effort Description
The elimination of the vulnerability requires very high effort.
For example:
• The measures require an entire new setup of the system.
• The architecture or the design require extensive adjustments or new
High developments.
Note Description
Additional information found regarding the scanned systems or services (e.g.
Information
version numbers or software classifications).
Designates an area which has been changed or supplemented since the pre-
[UPDATE]
vious version of the report.
<script>
alert(X); Blocks in this script denote code examples or extracts.
</script>
Vulnerability Rating
DNS – External Resolvers Medium
Ports and Services Medium
Network – NAC & Static Network Configuration Low
Network – Segmentation Medium
Network – Separation Medium
The google DNS server 8.8.8.8 is used as the DNS server. In addition, to allow ac-
cess to the external DNS server, it is possible to access arbitrary servers on the in-
ternet via UDP port 53. Thus, it is possible to configure other DNS servers, or to
use UDP port 53 as a covert channel. During the penetration test such a tunnel was
set up to transfer data with a server on the internet, bypassing any captive portals /
Findings login mechanisms.
This might also be an issue in the internal network, as due to the setup it is unclear
whether the attack was performed via the internal network or the guest network.
Furthermore, using an external external DNS server can lead to information disclo-
sure, e.g. when machines try to lookup internal names.
External name resolution for any system must not be possible in protected net-
Measures works.
Network traffic to any external DNS forward servers must be restricted.
Effort Medium
References -
A client seems to be a TV (tivoconnect) (in addition to the other TVs, see “Network
Findings
– Separation”):
Services not needed must be shut down. Required services that don’t have to be
Measures accessible by the public must be protected by a firewall and only specified users (IP
addresses or networks) must be permitted to access them.
Effort Medium
References -
4.1.2 Network
Effort Medium
References
During the penetrationtest it was not possible to access the internal network from
the guest network.
However, due to the setup, these findings are not 100% reliable.
Findings
In additon, no firewall is used to ensure a separation of the guest network. The
switches cannot provide any security guarantees and there have been multiple at-
tacks on switches in the past in order to access other network segments, e.g. via
overloading.
Network segments need to be properly separated from each other, e.g. via a fire-
Measures
wall.
Effort Medium
References -
Domain-joined machines are trying to resolve internal names (e.g. festo, CLT…,
Findings SMS_SLP,
DLT00016, SDET2105, …) via LLMNR, NBT-NS, MDNS, e.g.:
These can be poisoned and attacked, e.g. to retrieve hashes, which can then be
used to
authenticate in the internal network and further attack the internal network.
Multiple machines in the guest network are running multiple services, which can be
used to further attack the entire network. For example, there are at least four TVs
(Sony BRAVIA) on the network with a Chromecast. It is possible to connect and
control these Chromecasts:
1) device="BRAVIA 4K GB" device_name="FW-55XE8001" ad-
dress="192.168.245.194:8009" uuid="9dab20d1a9e6e7b5bb2e659a19ba4bd8"
2) device="BRAVIA 4K GB" device_name="FW-55XE8001" ad-
dress="192.168.245.147:8009" uuid="98b7534689d3b10963057f0f82ca1c0a"
3) device="BRAVIA 4K GB" device_name="FW-55XE8001" ad-
dress="192.168.245.184:8009" uuid="bfcbbe7fec4a2015e2b29976ee76ee8d"
4) device="BRAVIA 4K GB ATV3" device_name="KD-65XF9005" ad-
dress="192.168.245.145:8009" uuid="d4b179f788efe69649e50e1ed6c6f5ed"
Nmap scan report for 192.168.245.184
Host is up (0.0048s latency).
Not shown: 988 closed tcp ports (conn-refused)
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
1033/tcp filtered netinfo
1042/tcp filtered afrog
1048/tcp filtered neod2
2020/tcp filtered xinupageserver
2967/tcp filtered symantec-av
3871/tcp filtered avocent-adsap
7777/tcp filtered cbt
8008/tcp open http
8009/tcp open ajp13
10010/tcp filtered rxapi
33899/tcp filtered unknown
Nmap scan report for 192.168.245.194
Host is up (0.019s latency).
Not shown: 996 closed tcp ports (conn-refused)
PORT STATE SERVICE
993/tcp filtered imaps
1025/tcp filtered NFS-or-IIS
Effort Medium
References -