Schwachstellenerkennung Archive

Tag Archive for: Schwachstellenerkennung

Greenbone Detection Stays Strong Despite NIST NVD Outage

Despite the NVD (National Vulnerability Database) outage of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), Greenbone’s detection engine remains fully operational, offering reliable, vulnerability scanning without relying on missing CVE enrichment data.

Since 1999 The MITRE Corporation’s Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) has provided free public vulnerability intelligence by publishing and managing information about software flaws. NIST has diligently enriched these CVE reports since 2005; adding context to enhance their use for cyber risk assessment. In early 2024, the cybersecurity community was caught off guard as the NIST NVD ground to a halt. Now roughly one year later, the outage had not been fully resolved [1][2]. With an increasing number of CVE submissions each year, NIST’s struggles have left a large percentage without context such as a severity score (CVSS), affected product lists (CPE) and weakness classifications (CWE).

Recent policy shifts pushed by the Trump administration have created further uncertainty about the future of vulnerability information sharing and the many security providers that depend upon it. The FY 2025 budget for CISA includes notable reductions in specific areas such as a 49.8 million Dollar decrease in Procurement, Construction and Improvements and a 4.7 million Dollar cut in Research and Development. In response to the funding challenges, CISA has taken actions to reduce spending, including adjustments to contracts and procurement strategies.

To be clear, there has been no outage of the CVE program yet. On April 16, the CISA issued a last minute directive to extend its contract with MITRE to ensure the operation of the CVE Program for an additional 11 months just hours before the contract was set to expire. However, nobody can predict how future events will unfold. The potential impact to intelligence sharing is alarming, perhaps signaling a new dimension to a “Cold Cyberwar” of sorts.

This article includes a brief overview of how the CVE program operates, and how Greenbone’s detection capabilities remain strong throughout the NIST NVD outage.

An Overview of the CVE Program Operations

The MITRE Corporation is a non-profit tasked with supporting US homeland security on multiple fronts including defensive research to protect critical infrastructure and cybersecurity. MITRE operates the CVE program, acting as the Primary CNA (CVE Numbering Authority) and maintaining the central infrastructure for CVE ID assignment, record publication, communication workflows among all CNAs and ADPs (Authorized Data Publishers) and program governance. MITRE provides CVE data to the public through its CVE.org website and the cvelistV5 GitHub repository, which contains all CVE Records in structured JSON format. The result has been highly efficient, standardized vulnerability reporting and seamless data sharing across the cybersecurity ecosystem.

After a vulnerability description is submitted to MITRE by a CNA, NIST has historically added:

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System): A severity score and detailed vector string that includes the risk context for Attack Complexity (AC), Impact to Confidentiality (C), Integrity (I), and Availability (A), as well as other factors.
CPE (Common Platform Enumeration): A specially formatted string that acts to identify affected products by relaying the product name, vendor, versions, and other architectural specifications.
CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration): A root-cause classification according to the type of software flaw involved.

CVSS allows organizations to more easily determine the degree of risk posed by a particular vulnerability and strategically conduct remediation accordingly. Also, because initial CVE reports only require a non-standardized affected product declaration, NIST’s addition of CPE allows vulnerability management platforms to conduct CPE matching as a fast, although somewhat unreliable way to determine whether a CVE exists within an organization’s infrastructure or not.

For a more detailed perspective on how the vulnerability disclosure process works and how CSAF 2.0 offers a decentralized alternative to MITRE’s CVE program, check out our article: How CSAF 2.0 Advances Automated Vulnerability Management. Next, let’s take a closer look at the NIST NVD outage and understand what makes Greenbone’s detection capabilities resilient against the NIST NVD outage.

The NIST NVD Outage: What Happened?

Starting on February 12, 2024, the NVD drastically reduced its enrichment of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) with critical metadata such as CVSS, CPE and CWE product identifiers. The issue was first identified by Anchore’s VP of Security. As of May 2024, roughly 93% of CVEs added after February 12 were unenriched. By September 2024, NIST had failed to meet its self-imposed deadline; 72.4% of CVEs and 46.7% of new additions to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEVs) were still unenriched [3].

The slowdown in NVD’s enrichment process had significant repercussions for the cybersecurity community not only because enriched data is critical for defenders to effectively prioritize security threats, but also because some vulnerability scanners depend on this enriched data to implement their detection techniques.

As a cybersecurity defender, it’s worthwhile asking: was Greenbone affected by the NIST NVD outage? The short answer is no. Read on to find out why Greenbone’s detection capabilities are resilient against the NIST NVD outage.

Greenbone Detection Strong Despite the NVD Outage

Without enriched CVE data, some vulnerability management solutions become ineffective because they rely on CPE matching to determine if a vulnerability exists within an organization’s infrastructure. However, Greenbone is resilient against the NIST NVD outage because our products do not depend on CPE matching. Greenbone’s OPENVAS vulnerability tests can be built from un-enriched CVE description. In fact, Greenbone can and does include detection for known vulnerabilities and misconfigurations that don’t even have CVEs such as CIS compliance benchmarks [4][5].

To build Vulnerability Tests (VT) Greenbone employs a dedicated team of software engineers who identify the underlying technical aspects of vulnerabilities. Greenbone does include a CVE Scanner feature capable of traditional CPE matching. However, unlike solutions that rely solely on CPE data from NIST NVD to identify vulnerabilities, Greenbone employs detection techniques that extend far beyond basic CPE matching. Therefore, Greenbone’s vulnerability detection capabilities remain robust even in the face of challenges such as the recent outage of the NIST NVD.

To achieve highly resilient, industry leading vulnerability detection, Greenbone’s OPENVAS Scanner component actively interacts with exposed network services to construct a detailed map of a target network’s attack surface. This includes identifying services that are accessible via network connections, probing them to determine products, and executing individual Vulnerability Tests (VT) for each CVE or non-CVE security flaw to actively verify whether they are present. Greenbone’s Enterprise Vulnerability Feed contains over 180,000 VTs, updated daily, to detect the latest disclosed vulnerabilities, ensuring rapid detection of the newest threats.

In addition to its active scanning capabilities, Greenbone supports agentless data collection via authenticated scans. Gathering detailed information from endpoints, Greenbone evaluates installed software packages against issued CVEs. This method provides precise vulnerability detection without depending on enriched CPE data from the NVD.

Key Takeways:

Independence from enriched CVE data: Greenbone’s vulnerability detection does not rely on enriched CVE data provided by NIST’s NVD, ensuring uninterrupted performance during outages. A basic description of a vulnerability allows Greenbone’s vulnerability test engineers to develop a detection module.
Detection beyond CPE matching: While Greenbone includes a CVE Scanner feature for CPE matching, its detection capabilities extend far beyond this basic approach, utilizing several methods that actively interact with scan targets.
Attack surface mapping: The OPENVAS Scanner actively interacts with exposed services to map network attack surface, identifying all network reachable services. Greenbone also performs authenticated scans to gather data directly from endpoint internals. This information is processed to identify vulnerable packages. Enriched CVE data such as CPE is not required.
Resilience to NVD enrichment outages: Greenbone’s detection methods remain effective even without NVD enrichment, leveraging CVE descriptions provided by CNAs to create accurate active checks and version-based vulnerability assessments.

Greenbone’s Approach is Practical, Effective and Resilient

Greenbone exemplifies the gold standard of practicality, effectiveness and resilience, achieving a benchmark that IT security teams should be striving to achieve. By leveraging active network mapping, authenticated scans and actively interacting with target infrastructure, Greenbone ensures reliable, resilient detection capabilities in diverse environments.

This higher standard enables organizations to confidently address vulnerabilities, even in complex and dynamic threat landscapes. Even in the absence of NVD enrichment, Greenbone’s detection methods remain effective. With only a general description Greenbone’s VT engineers can develop accurate active checks and product version-based vulnerability assessments.

Through a fundamentally resilient approach to vulnerability detection, Greenbone ensures reliable vulnerability management, setting itself apart in the cybersecurity landscape.

NVD / NIST / MITRE Alternatives

The MITRE issue is a wake-up call for digital sovereignty, and the EU has already (and fast) reacted. A long-awaited alternative, the EuVD by the ENISA, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity, is there, and will be covered in one of our upcoming blog posts.

Contact Test Now Buy Here Back to Overview

22. April 2025/by Greenbone AG

March 2025 Threat Report: Who Do You Trust?

Blog

When it comes to protecting your organization from digital threats, who should you trust? Reality dictates that high-resilience IT security is forged from a network of strong partnerships, defense in depth; layered security controls, and regular auditing. Defensive posture needs to be monitored, measured and continuously improved. While vulnerability management has always been a core security control, it is nonetheless a fast moving target. In 2025, continuous and prioritized mitigation of security threats can have a big impact on security outcomes as adversarial time-to-exploit diminishes.

In March 2025’s monthly Threat Report, we will highlight the importance of vulnerability management and Greenbone’s industry leading vulnerability detection by reviewing the most recent critical threats. But these new threats only scratch the surface. In March 2025, Greenbone added 5,283 new vulnerability tests to our Enterprise Feed. Let’s jump into some of the important insights from a highly active threat landscape.

The US Treasury Breach: How Did It Happen?

In late December 2024, the U.S. Treasury Department disclosed that its network was breached by Chinese state-backed hackers and subsequently leveraged sanctions in early January 2025. Forensic investigations have tracked the root-cause to a stolen BeyondTrust API key. The vendor has acknowledged 17 other customers breached by this flaw. Deeper investigation has revealed that the API key was stolen via a flaw in a PostgreSQL built-in function for escaping untrusted input.

When invalid two-byte UTF-8 characters are submitted to a vulnerable PostgreSQL function, only the first byte is escaped, allowing a single quote to pass through unsanitized which can be leveraged to trigger an SQL Injection [CWE-89] attack. The exploitable functions are PQescapeLiteral(), PQescapeIdentifier(), PQescapeString() und PQescapeStringConn(). All versions of PostgreSQL before 17.3, 16.7, 15.11, 14.16, and 13.19 are affected as well as numerous products that depend on these functions.

CVE-2024-12356, (CVSS 9.8) and CVE-2024-12686, (CVSS 7.2) have been issued for BeyondTrust Privileged Remote Access (PRA) and Remote Support (RS) and CVE-2025-1094 (CVSS 8.1) addresses the flaw in PostgreSQL. The issue is the subject of several national CERT advisories including Germany’s BSI Cert-Bund (WID-SEC-2024-3726) and the Canadian Centre for Cybersecurity (AV25-084). The flaw has been added to CISA’s known exploited vulnerabilities (KEV) list, and a Metasploit module that exploits vulnerable BeyondTrust products is available, increasing the risk. Greenbone is able to detect the CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) discussed above both in BeyondTrust products or instances of PostgreSQL vulnerable to CVE-2025-1094.

Advanced fined 3.1 Million Pound for Lack of Technical Controls

This month, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) imposed a 3.07 million Pound fine on Advanced Computer Software Group Ltd. under the UK GDPR for security failures. The case is evidence of how the financial damage caused by a ransomware attack can be further exacerbated by regulatory fines. The initial proposed amount was even higher at 6.09 million Pound. However, since the victim exhibited post-incident cooperation with the NCSC (National Cyber Security Centre), NCA (National Crime Agency) and NHS (National Health Service), a voluntary settlement of 3,076,320 Pound was approved. While operational costs and extortion payments have not been publicly disclosed, they likely add between 10 to 20 million Pound to the incident’s total costs.

Advanced is a major IT and software provider to healthcare organizations including the NHS. In August 2022, Advanced was compromised, attackers gained access to its health and care subsidiary resulting in a serious ransomware incident. The breach disrupted critical services including NHS 111 and prevented healthcare staff from accessing personal data on 79,404 individuals, including sensitive care information.

The ICO concluded that Advanced had incomplete MFA coverage, lacked comprehensive vulnerability scanning and had deficient patch management practices at the time of the incident – factors that collectively represented a failure to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures. Organizations processing sensitive data must treat security controls as non-negotiable. Inadequate patch management remains one of the most exploited gaps in modern attack chains.

Double Trouble: Backups Are Critical to Ransomware Mitigation

Backups are an organization’s last defense against ransomware and most sophisticated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors are known to target their victim’s backups. If a victim’s backups are compromised, submission to ransom demands is more likely. In 2025, this could mean multi-million Dollar losses. In March 2025, two new significant threats to backup services were revealed; CVE-2025-23120, a new critical severity flaw in Veeam was disclosed, and campaigns targeting CVE-2024-48248 in NAKIVO Backup & Replication were observed. Identifying affected systems and patching them is therefore an urgent matter.

In October 2024, our threat report alerted about another vulnerability in Veeam (CVE-2024-40711) being used in ransomware attacks. Overall, CVEs in Veeam Backup and Replication have a high conversion rate for active exploitation, PoC (Proof of Concept) exploits, and use in ransomware attacks. Here are the details for both emerging threats:

CVE-2024-48248 (CVSS 8.6): Versions of NAKIVO Backup & Replication before 11.0.0.88174 allow unauthorized Remote Code Execution (RCE) via a function called getImageByPath which allows files to be read remotely. This includes database files containing cleartext credentials for each system that NAKIVO connects to and backs up. A full technical description and proof-of-concept is available and this vulnerability is now tracked as actively exploited.
CVE-2025-23120 (CVSS 9.9): Attackers with domain user access can trigger deserialization of attacker-controlled data through the .NET Remoting Channel. Veeam attempts to restrict dangerous types via a blacklist, but researchers discovered exploitable classes (xmlFrameworkDs and BackupSummary) not on the list. These extend .NET’s DataSet class – a well-known RCE vector – allowing arbitrary code execution as SYSTEM on the backup server. The flaw is the subject of national CERT alerts globally including HK, CERT.be, and CERT-In. As per Veeam’s advisory, upgrading to version 12.3.1 is the recommended way to mitigate the vulnerability.

Greenbone is able to detect vulnerable NAKIVO and Veeam instances. Our Enterprise Feed has an active check [1] and version check [2] for CVE-2024-48248 in NAKIVO Backup & Replication, and a remote version check [3] for the Veeam flaw.

IngressNightmare: Unauthenticated Takeover in 43% of Kubernetes Clusters

Kubernetes is the most popular enterprise container orchestration tool globally. Its Ingress feature is a networking component that manages external access to services within a cluster, typically HTTP and HTTPS traffic. A vulnerability dubbed IngressNightmare has exposed an estimated 43% of Kubernetes clusters to unauthenticated remote access – approximately 6,500 clusters, including Fortune 500 companies.

The root-cause is excessive default privileges [CWE-250] and unrestricted network accessibility [CWE-284] in the Ingress-NGINX Controller tool, based on NGINX reverse proxy. IngressNightmare allows attackers to gain complete unauthorized control over workloads, APIs or sensitive resources in multi-tenant and production-grade clusters. A full technical analysis is available from the researchers at Wiz, who pointed out that K8 Admission Controllers are directly accessible without authentication by default, presenting an appealing attack surface to hackers.

The full attack trajectory to achieve arbitrary RCE against an affected K8 instance requires exploiting Ingress-NGINX. First, CVE-2025-1974 (CVSS 9.8) to upload a binary payload as the request body. It should be larger than 8kb in size while specifying a Content-Length header larger than the actual content size. This triggers NGINX to store the request body as a file, and the incorrect Content-Length header means the file will not be deleted as the server waits for more data [CWE-459].

The second stage of this attack requires exploiting CVE-2025-1097, CVE-2025-1098, or CVE-2025-24514 (CVSS 8.8). These CVEs all similarly fail to properly sanitize input [CWE-20] submitted to Admission Controllers. Ingress-NGINX converts Ingress objects to configuration files and validates them with the nginx -t command, allowing attackers to execute a limited set of NGINX configuration directives. Researchers found the ssl_engine module can be triggered to load the shared library binary payload uploaded in the first stage. Although exploitation is not trivial and no public PoC code exists yet, sophisticated threat actors will easily convert the technical analysis into effective exploits.

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security has issued a CERT advisory (AV25-161) for IngressNightmare. Patched Ingress-NGINX versions 1.12.1 and 1.11.5 are available and users should upgrade as soon as possible. If upgrading the Ingress NGINX Controller is not immediately possible, temporary workarounds can help reduce risk. Strict network policies can restrict access to a cluster’s Admission Controllers allowing access to only the Kubernetes API Server. Alternatively, the Admission Controller component of Ingress-NGINX can be disabled entirely.

Greenbone is able to detect IngressNightmare vulnerabilities with an active check that verifies the presence of all CVEs mentioned above [1][2].

CVE-2025-29927: Next.js Framework Under Attack

A new vulnerability in Next.js, CVE-2025-29927 (CVSS 9.4) is considered high risk due the framework’s popularity and the simplicity of exploitation [1][2]. Adding to the risk, PoC exploit code is publicly available and Akamai researchers have observed active scans probing the Internet for vulnerable apps. Several national CERTs (Computer Emergency Response Teams) have issued alerts for the issue including CERT.NZ, Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), Germany’s BSI Cert-Bund (WID-SEC-2025-062), and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (AV25-162).

Next.js is a React middleware framework for building full-stack web applications. Middleware refers to components that sit between two or more systems and handle communication and orchestration. For web-applications, middleware converts incoming HTTP requests into responses and is often also responsible for authentication and authorization. Due to CVE-2025-29927, attackers can bypass Next.js middleware authentication and authorization simply by setting a malicious HTTP header.

If using HTTP headers seems like a bad idea for managing a web application’s internal process flow, CVE-2025-29927 is the evidence. Considering user-provided headers were not correctly distinguished from internal ones, this vulnerability should attain the status of egregious negligence. Attackers can bypass authentication by simply adding the `x‑middleware‑subrequest` header to a request and overloading it with at least as many values as the MAX_RECURSION_DEPTH which is 5. For example:

`x-middleware-subrequest: middleware:middleware:middleware:middleware:middleware`

The flaw is fixed in Next.js versions 15.2.3, 14.2.25, 13.5.9 and 12.3.5, and users should follow the vendor’s upgrade guide. If upgrading is infeasible, it is recommended to filter the `x-middleware-subrequest` header from HTTP requests. Greenbone is able to detect vulnerable instances of Next.js with an active check and a version check.

Summary

The March 2025 threat landscape was shaped by vulnerable and actively exploited backup systems, unforgivably weak authentication logic, high-profile regulatory fines and numerous other critical software vulnerabilities. From the U.S. Treasury breach to the Advanced ransomware fallout, the theme is clear: trust doesn’t grow on trees. Cybersecurity resilience must be earned; forged through layered security controls and backed up by accountability.

Greenbone continues to play a vital role by providing timely detection tests for new emerging threats and standardized compliance audits that support a wide array of enterprise architectures. Organizations that want to stay ahead of cyber crime need to proactively scan their infrastructure and close security gaps as they appear.