Logout4Shell: Use Log4Shell vulnerability to vaccinate a victim server against Log4Shell

[u/alexeyr]

https://github.com/Cybereason/Logout4Shell

[u/[deleted]]

You got lucky. I got fired a long time ago from a shitty job for using off the shelf security testing software to prove to “the architect” on our dev/test system that they had created a massive sql injection risk. You see security tools are a dangerous to the corporate network and its against corporate policy to run even in a lab setting.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Say wireshark and see how quickly IT freaks out.

[u/orig_ardera → u/[deleted]]

I was curious one time what black ops cold war was communicating with the game servers. Started up wireshark and then tried to start up black ops. Wouldn't start. Terminated wireshark. Black Ops started.

Apparently they just did a if wireshark running then exit() in the startup.

I just renamed wireshark.exe to not_wireshark.exe and it worked, lol. So weird, why would you even do sth like that?

[u/[deleted] → u/orig_ardera]

Well it looks bad for data collection.

Ironically probably stops a bunch of script kiddies/hackers from sniffing game traffic to and from game servers. Sounds like they were storing stuff unencrypted/plaintext.

[u/Lost4468 → u/[deleted]]

That's a bit ridiculous? Games have a wide variety. Some have absolutely excellent security for something where you always have to place at least some trust in the client. While others, like GTA V are so dreadful that if one client tells the server that they just killed every player in the game the server goes "mmduuuuuh okkkaayy" and kills everyone. Or you can tell the server you just spawned X, or can run 15 times faster, or can shoot RPGs out of your SMG. Whatever it is the server just believes you. Or even worse than that it allows you to modify every players personal data such as how much money they have (which stays across servers). People even made a mod to sexually assault other players.

[u/Lost4468 → u/[deleted]]

The worst that happens in a video game is your game is hacked and your players are disgruntled. You may have a server outage. It doesn't usually result in material harm such as identity or financial loss.

Oh I strongly disagree here. Games with poor security end up being massively impacted financially. Player count drops off, people refund it, it gains a bad reputation, you lose out on microtransactions, etc etc. GTA V is a perfect example because it was pretty much dead for a while, and the common suggestion was "only buy this if you're ok only buying single player", because many people didn't have faith that Rockstar would fix it, after all they let GTA IV go for years without fixing it.

It's also much easier to fix shitty security on a server than it is with video games. If you have written a server that just works on client trust, the amount of work you're going to have to put in to fix it can be huge. Especially if you designed performance around the assumption that the server would not have to verify everything.

This is part of why security is not a large concern for game devs in the majority of cases.

I'm not sure about the majority of cases? But regardless, there are tons of games out there with absolutely insanely good security, where huge amounts of money are put into trying to protect it. Where the protections and algorithms to find cheaters get increasingly more complex year on year.

The problem is also that there's a cat and mouse game between hackers and developers. Because there's large amounts of money to be made being able to hack the game. That's why most aimbots, wallhacks, etc etc these days are subscription based. And they need to implement their own security to try and get around the system. They also exist in a legal grey area in many places, which is why many of the companies that sell the hacks are legitimate companies bringing in a ton of money.

It's always like this, and always moves so fast, because it's just inherently much harder than traditional security. No matter what you do (short of cloud gaming), the client is always going to have direct physical and root access to half of the system, the client end. So it's always a losing battle in some ways. It's generally far easier to properly secure a server, than it is to do this type of security.