this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
100 points (99.0% liked)

Selfhosted

40173 readers
664 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
100
Synology hurries out patches for zero-days exploited at Pwn2Own (www.bleepingcomputer.com)
submitted 1 day ago by otter@lemmy.ca to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As Synology explains in security advisories published two days after the flaws were demoed at Pwn2Own Ireland 2024 to hijack a Synology BeeStation BST150-4T device, the security flaws enable remote attackers to gain remote code execution as root on vulnerable NAS appliances exposed online.

"The vulnerability was initially discovered, within just a few hours, as a replacement for another Pwn2Own submission. The issue was disclosed to Synology immediately after demonstration, and within 48 hours a patch was made available which resolves the vulnerability," Midnight Blue said.

From a different source:

Synology proactively sponsors and works with security researchers as part of product security initiatives. At this year's Pwn2Own Ireland 2024 event, which took place in late October, we successfully discovered and resolved multiple security vulnerabilities.

While these vulnerabilities are not being exploited, we recommend all Synology device administrators immediately take action to secure their systems by updating due to the scope and severity of specific issues.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

FYI, in case anyone is running 7.2.1, just be aware that you have to MANUALLY update because you need to agree to new terms that removes local hardware processing of some media types.

https://www.synology.com/en-global/releaseNote/DSM

7.2.2-72806 Update 1 is the update with the new patches.

If you're running Plex locally (i.e. - not in docker) you'll need to manually install the updated 7.2.2 patch. You need to download it locally, then push it back up to your NAS bypassing the normal process. You can't use the plex client to prompt the update, and you can't use the synology package manager to update.

The package links on Reddit and some other sites are older versions that may not install
https://www.plex.tv/media-server-downloads/?cat=nas&plat=synology-dsm72&signUp=0

September 27th, 2024 release is currently the latest non-beta version - v.1.41.1.9057-af5eaea7a
AMD/Intel
https://downloads.plex.tv/plex-media-server-new/1.41.1.9057-af5eaea7a/synology-dsm72/PlexMediaServer-1.41.1.9057-af5eaea7a-x86_64_DSM72.spk

ARMv8
https://downloads.plex.tv/plex-media-server-new/1.41.1.9057-af5eaea7a/synology-dsm72/PlexMediaServer-1.41.1.9057-af5eaea7a-aarch64_DSM72.spk

ARMv7
https://downloads.plex.tv/plex-media-server-new/1.41.1.9057-af5eaea7a/synology-dsm72/PlexMediaServer-1.41.1.9057-af5eaea7a-armv7neon_DSM72.spk

[–] Deebster@infosec.pub 4 points 1 day ago

So they’ve just decided that all devices now support HEVC (H.265) and they’ll just disable transcoding? My media centre is on a Pi 3B and that can’t play h265 smoothly. If I had a Synology I’d be pretty annoyed!

[–] tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I updated to 7.2.2 this morning and it prompted me to update Plex and then gave a message about what to do if Plex couldn't see my library. It seems to be ok.

[–] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Was it that the talk was a last minute change (replacing another scheduled talk) so the responsible disclosure was made in a rush without giving synology more time to provide the patch before the talk was presented?

If so, who decided it was a good idea to present something regarding a vulnerability without the fix being available yet?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

To be somewhat fair, if you're exposing these devices directly to the internet without even basic auth in front of them, you're a damn fool.

[–] 418_im_a_teapot@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Synology devices all have authentication enabled by default.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Basic auth keeps the actual login page from being accessed. Even having a login page accessible can lead to plenty of issues depending on your web framework. If you're doing this, you should be worried. If you don't even know what basic auth is, you should be really worried.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

There's a give-and-take here, where disclosing the vulnerability should be done soon enough to be responsible to affected users, but not so late that it's seen as pandering to the vendor.

We've already seen how much vendors drag their feet when they are given time to fix a vuln before the disclosure, and almost all the major vendors have tried to pull this move where they keep delaying fix unless it becomes public.

Synology hasn't been very reactive to fixing CVEs unless they're very public. One nasty vulnerability in the old DSM 6 was found at a hackathon by a researcher (I'll edit and post the number later), but the fix wasn't included in the main update stream, you had to go get the patch manually and apply it.

Vendors must have their feet held to the fire on vulns, or they don't bother doing anything.

[–] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

I hear you, but how much time was Synology given? If it was no time at all (which it seems is what happened here??), that does not even give Synology a chance and that's what I'm concerned with. If they get a month (give or take), then sure, disclose it and too bad for them if they don't have a fix, they should have taken it more seriously, but I'm wondering about how much time they were even given in this case.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Was that the file transfer allowed for remote code execution one? That'd be the one that sticks out to me. 3 or 4 years ago iirc?

Edit: CVE-2021-27649 is the one that came to mind, not sure if that's the one you're referring to.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If you are using any Synology products with your setup, you should go ahead and apply the recommended updates

[–] otter@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 day ago

2/2 otters agree with this course of action.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Voice of reason

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ugh but it's acting as the SAN so I have to shut down like all my servers to run updates on it. What a PITA.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

You could move to a high availability model but that is a pain and has lots of tradeoffs.

The device will go offline at some point. It is good to have some sort of plan of how to efficiently power it down without causing major problems. Maybe some automation to push stuff to a second NAS or something.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This was one of the rare times I installed a firmware update without waiting. They even sent an email telling me how urgent it was to get my NAS patched.

[–] 418_im_a_teapot@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I definitely did not get that email. WTH?

[–] GlassHalfHopeful@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

And this was how I learned that Video Station is no longer supported by Synology. If you want the updates, you'll have to uninstall it.

[–] AustralianSimon@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

There are scripts on github to reverse the change once you have done the update.

[–] bjornsno@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Synology supports docker containers. Just run jellyfin.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 hours ago

Jellyfin is also available as a native DSM package through SynoCommunity, FWIW.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To that note, anyone have any idea how to get Hyper Backup to stop telling me that my backups are "partial" because Video Station is no longer found? It's not even on the list of apps, but tells me that it's been disabled as an option to back up because it's not available. Annoying!

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Open hb, edit the affected backup plan, change nothing, okay/save. Happens when you set up a service to be backed up and then uninstall the service.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 17 hours ago

Brilliant! That worked!

[–] nameisnotimportant@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If someone knows how to apply security updates to ancient NAS from the brand I'm interested. Sadly mine is out of the loop, I guess I'll have to harden it like hell then

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

The solution is to not use EOL software

[–] thelittleblackbird@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't make it available from internet. This will solve the issue.

If it is not possible, once the cve is published and properly described, perhaps there is another way to secure it via an external proxy or even a waf.

If you have unsupported Sw, it is always a pain in the ass to keep them secure so try to figure out always the first point

[–] nameisnotimportant@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Don’t make it available from internet. This will solve the issue.

Thanks, I've read this countless times but that's basically half of the use I make from my NAS so no.

I'll try to secure it and still use it from outside / Internet then.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 hours ago

Tailscale is available as an official DSM package, so if it’s only you accessing it you could still block it from the Internet.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You will get compromised if you haven't already. (Your device becomes part of a botnet)

If you don't want new hardware use something actively supported like TrueNAS or regular Linux. You are asking for trouble. No hardening will protect you from out of date software with serious security holes.

[–] nameisnotimportant@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

(Your device becomes part of a botnet)

Out of curiosity, how can I know if it's already the case?

No hardening will protect you from out of date software with serious security holes

Connecting to the NAS only via VPN won't be enough?

[–] thelittleblackbird@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

Yes, it will be enough if your services are not exposed via port forwarding , tailscale / zerotier are super convenient for this.

Honestly, if I were you I would start thinking in having a small computer just to act like a proxy / firewall of you synology, or even better, just run the applications on that computer and let the nas only serve files and data.

It is much easier to support, maintain and hardening a debain with a minimal intallation than nay synology box just because the amount of resources available to do so. In this easy way you could extent the life of your nas far beyond the end of life of the Sw