Scan Report April 7, 2020 Summary This document reports ✓ Solved

This document reports on the results of an automatic security scan. All dates are displayed using the timezone Coordinated Universal Time, which is abbreviated UTC. The task was an immediate scan of IP 192.168.1.10. The scan started at Tue Apr 7 01:38: UTC and ended at Tue Apr 7 01:41: UTC. The report summarizes the results found and describes every issue for each host. Please consider the advice given in each description to rectify the issues.

Results Overview

Results per Host:

• 192.168.1.10

The following vulnerabilities were reported for the host:

• High: 445/tcp
• High: general/tcp
• Medium: 135/tcp
• Low: general/tcp

Vendor security updates are not trusted. Overrides are on. Information on overrides is included in the report. The report might not show details of all issues found. It only lists hosts that produced issues, excluding those with a threat level of Log, Debug, or False Positive. The report contains all results selected by the filtering applied.

Results per Host

192.168.1.10

Host scan start: Tue Apr 7 01:38: UTC

Host scan end: Tue Apr 7 01:41: UTC

Vulnerability Analysis

High Vulnerability: 445/tcp

This host is missing a critical security update according to Microsoft Bulletin MS17-010 (CVSS: 9.3). Successful exploitation will allow remote attackers to execute code on the target server, potentially leading to information disclosure. The vendor has released updates that should be applied immediately. Affected software includes various editions of Microsoft Windows.

High Vulnerability: general/tcp

The operating system on the remote host has reached the end of life. The detected operating system version is no longer supported, and running such software poses substantial risks to the organization’s cybersecurity. Mitigations should be implemented to ensure network security and compliance.

Medium Vulnerability: 135/tcp

The DCE/RPC or MSRPC services running on the remote host can be enumerated by connecting on port 135, which may allow attackers to gather more information about the remote system. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 5 and requires immediate attention to mitigate potential exploits.

Low Vulnerability: general/tcp

The remote host implements TCP timestamps, allowing the uptime of the remote host to be computed. The recommended solution is to disable TCP timestamps on the operating systems in use, thereby improving the overall security posture.

Conclusion

The vulnerabilities identified in the security scan represent significant risks to Mercury USA, particularly given recent cybersecurity concerns within the transportation sector. Addressing these vulnerabilities through a systematic vulnerability management process will enhance the organization's security posture and protect critical assets from potential threats.

Paper For Above Instructions

In light of the aforementioned security findings, a detailed Vulnerability Management (VM) process recommendation is warranted for Mercury USA. This process should encompass several key components such as asset identification, vulnerability scanning, and reporting of results.

Part 1: Vulnerability Management (VM) Process Recommendation

The major components of a VM process tailored to Mercury USA include:

• Asset Identification: A comprehensive inventory of all hardware and software assets in the organization, emphasizing those critical to transportation operations.
• Vulnerability Assessment: Regular scans using industry-standard tools to identify vulnerabilities.
• Risk Prioritization: Evaluating vulnerabilities to prioritize remediation efforts based on potential impact and exploitability.
• Remediation and Mitigation: Implementing fixes through vendor-provided patches or workarounds.
• Continuous Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring of networks and systems for new vulnerabilities.

To define the scope of the VM process, the evaluation should consider organizational goals, compliance requirements, and existing cybersecurity frameworks. This ensures that all relevant assets are included in the assessment.

Industry-standard scanning tools will be integral in the VM process. Tools such as Nessus and Qualys offer robust scanning capabilities, capable of detecting vulnerabilities and helping prioritize remediation efforts effectively (Nessus, 2020). Regular scanning should occur monthly, with ad-hoc assessments following significant changes to the network or systems.

Part 2: Vulnerability Scanning Tool Evaluation and Recommendations

The scanning tool utilized for the reported vulnerabilities can be identified as Nessus. It is a commercial tool widely regarded as an industry standard due to its comprehensive feature set and regular updates. Advantages of using Nessus include its extensive database of vulnerabilities and a user-friendly interface that facilitates actionable reporting. However, a notable disadvantage is the cost associated with licensing for extensive or enterprise-level deployments.

Overall, the output from Nessus provides adequate detail to enable analysts to focus on critical vulnerabilities effectively. However, while the mitigations suggested are sound, further clarification and contextual relevance may be helpful for management (Tenable, 2023).

Distributing the report should be controlled, primarily shared with relevant security personnel until adequate remediations are in place. Based on its output and support, I would recommend continued use of Nessus for Mercury USA.

Part 3: Business Case Example

If Mercury USA fails to implement the recommendations for a VM process, it risks severe outcomes such as data breaches, operational disruptions, and potential legal ramifications. A data exfiltration incident could lead to loss of critical data and negatively impact stakeholders' trust.

The recommended VM process addresses these risks by providing a structured approach to identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities effectively. By employing the Nessus tool, Mercury USA can systematically address any vulnerabilities urgently, thus fortifying its systems against potential attacks.

Conclusion

In summary, this memorandum articulates a comprehensive vulnerability management process tailored for Mercury USA, evaluates the scanning tool used, and underscores the consequences of neglecting security measures. Addressing the vulnerabilities identified will enhance the organization’s resilience against cyber threats.

References

• [1] Tenable, "Nessus Professional," 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.tenable.com/products/nessus
• [2] "Chapter 5: Implementing an Information Security Vulnerability Management Process," Pearson CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst (CySA+), 2020. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 28- Apr- 2020].
• [3] CVE Details, "CVE-2017-0144," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2017-0144/
• [4] Microsoft, "MS17-010: Security Update for Microsoft Windows SMB Server," 2017. [Online]. Available: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/SecurityBulletins/2017/ms17-010
• [5] "Qualys Vulnerability Management," Qualys, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.qualys.com/apps/vulnerability-management/
• [6] Ponemon Institute, "Cost of a Data Breach Report," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach
• [7] NIST, "Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity," 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
• [8] SANS Institute, "Vulnerability Management: Continuous, Continuous, Continuous", 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.sans.org/white-papers/38582/
• [9] CIS, "CIS Controls v7.1," 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cisecurity.org/controls/
• [10] Verizon, "Data Breach Investigations Report," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://enterprise.verizon.com/resources/reports/dbir/