Assessing the email security controls used by 10,000 U.S. state and local election administrators
Vulnerabilities mentionedAll →
| CVE | Vulnerability | CVSS | EPSS | Flags | Affected | Exposure | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-10149 | Unvalidated Email Recipient Enables Remote Command Execution in Exim MTA CVE-2019-10149 is an improper input validation flaw (CWE-78, OS command injection) in the deliver_message() function in /src/deliver.c of the Exim mail transfer agent, where email recipient addresses are not safely validated before use. A remote attacker triggers it by sending mail whose recipient address contains crafted Exim string-expansion syntax (such as ${run{...}}), causing Exim to expand and execute attacker-supplied operating-system commands during recipient verification or delivery. An attacker gains arbitrary remote command execution on the mail server, commonly with elevated privileges, enabling full system compromise, data theft, ransomware deployment (e.g., the Trinity ransomware campaign), or installation of botnet implants. Any organization running an internet-exposed Exim MTA in the affected version range is at risk, and Exim is widely deployed as the default mail server on many Linux distributions. Exploitation is confirmed in the wild: mass scanning and compromise campaigns began shortly after the June 2019 disclosure, CISA added the flaw to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog on 2022-01-10, and its EPSS score of 100% (100th percentile) reflects near-certain near-term exploitation risk. Do: Upgrade Exim to 4.92 or later, or install your distribution's patched Exim package, as required by CISA's KEV action ('apply updates per vendor instructions'); if patching must be delayed, restrict internet-facing SMTP access and tighten recipient-verification configuration. Check mail logs for suspicious MAIL FROM/RCPT TO addresses containing expansion syntax such as ${run{...}} or shell-like commands, and audit patched servers for post-compromise artifacts such as unusual cron jobs, downloaded binaries, or new authorized SSH keys. | 9.8 | 100% | KEV PoC ×5 |
| mass≈500,000+ internet-exposed Exim SMTP servers, with hundreds of thousands likely running vulnerable versions | |
| CVE-2019-15846 | Exim before 4.92.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code as root via a trailing backslash. Exim before 4.92.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code as root via a trailing backslash. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 9.8 | 36% |
| — | ||
| CVE-2019-16928 | Exim Out-of-bounds Write Vulnerability Exim 4.92 through 4.92.2 allows remote code execution, a different vulnerability than CVE-2019-15846. There is a heap-based buffer overflow in string_vformat in string.c involving a long EHLO command. NVD description · AI analysis pending | 9.8 | 42% | KEV PoC ×2 |
| — |
Full article458 words · extracted from helpnetsecurity.com · click to collapse
With fewer than 100 days left until Election Day, a new report from Area 1 Security reveals that states are still in widely varying stages of cybersecurity readiness.
Key findings include:
- The majority (53.24 percent) of state and local election administrators have only rudimentary or non-standard technologies to protect themselves from phishing
- Fewer than 3 out of 10 (28.14 percent) election administrators have basic controls to prevent phishing
- Fewer than 2 out of 10 (18.61 percent) election administrators have implemented advanced anti-phishing cybersecurity controls
- A surprising 5.42 percent of election administrators rely on personal email accounts or technologies designed for personal email (such as Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL or others), to conduct their duties
- A number of election administrators independently manage their own custom email infrastructure, including using versions of Exim known to be targeted by cyber actors linked to the Russian military that interfered in prior U.S. elections.
Ninety-five percent of cybersecurity damages worldwide begin with phishing, and phishing campaigns come in all shapes and sizes. The majority of phishing campaigns begin with an innocuous and authentic email that individuals are unable to recognize as malicious. Consequently, the quality of email protection used by organizations and individuals has an inordinate bearing on their overall cybersecurity posture.
“Our elections are vital. They need to be resilient against whatever crisis the moment throws at us — and that requires resources and planning,” said Oren J. Falkowitz, co-founder of Area 1 Security. “However, most state and local election administrators are not very close to ensuring a safe election. This challenge is going to be exacerbated the longer it takes for them to get the resources and expertise needed to make changes.”
Security recommendations for state and local election administrators
Ending use of Exim email servers: Given the government’s guidance to update Exim to mitigate CVE-2019-10149 and other vulnerabilities including, but not limited to, CVE-2019-15846 and CVE-2019-16928, election administrators are urged to cease use of Exim. Upgrading alone does not mitigate exploitation. Prior Russian cyber activities directed towards U.S. elections make use of Exim ill-advised. For those who must continue running Exim, update to the latest version; running a version prior to 4.93 leaves a system vulnerable to disclosed vulnerabilities. Administrators can update Exim Mail Transfer Agent software through their Linux distribution’s package manager or by downloading the latest version.
Transitioning to cloud email infrastructure: Running custom email infrastructure requires network administrators to be perfect every single day. Instead, Area 1 Security recommends the use of cloud email infrastructure such as Google’s GSuite or Microsoft’s Office 365 in combination with a cloud email security solution.
Ending use of personal email technologies for election duties: Under no circumstances should election administrators use personal email for the conduct or administration of elections.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2020/07/29/election-administrators-phishing/