this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024

159 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

60052 readers

2924 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

159

Palo Alto Networks confirms mystery zero day now exploited: No patch, no CVE (www.thestack.technology)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 86 points 1 month ago (5 children)

with the US-based security vendor on November 11 urging customers to pull their management interfaces off the public internet or restrict them to known IP addresses.

Why would you EVER put management interfaces on the public internet? What terrible decisions led them down that path? VPN is so quick and easy at a minimum.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The network gear I manage is only accessible via VPN, or from a trusted internal network...

...and by the gear I manage, I mean my home network (a router and a few managed switches and access points). If a doofus like me can set it up for my home, I'd think that actual companies would be able to figure it out, too.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I know right, 99% of these caves are against management interfaces too

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Paleo Alto?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Saw the writing on the wall, there.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

Management interfaces shouldn't even be accessible from the general LAN.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Once I read this I just stopped lol. You almost deserve to be explored if you do this, this is like security 101.

[–] jdeath@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

zero trust?

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/ → Leader in Cybersecurity Protection & Software for the Modern Enterprises - Palo Alto Networks

Thanks, I will avoid them.

[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They're spamming all web logs too with an advertisement for their services in the user agent. I decided to ban them from all my websites because the logs took up too much space.

[–] mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah fuck them.

[–] TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

lmao that's not an ad, dude.

[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're saying who they are, what they do, and are linking to their website and sometimes sends hundreds of requests in a minute. It might not say "For only €49.99 you can get your very own thing!”, but that does not mean they aren't throwing their name up in every website owner's arse whether they like it or not.

[–] TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's so you know who is scanning you.

[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 5 points 1 month ago

That could have been done by just having a single entry called GoogleBot or BingBot, not an entire sentence explaining their product offering let alone hundreds of times a minute.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

"urging customers to pull their management interfaces off the public internet or restrict them to known IP addresses."

Sounds more like pebkac and less of a big deal. Management interface should be in your management VLAN, plus I don't know another vendor that can touch them in terms of security features.