Chained PHP2Shell Exploit Roots 25 Servers, Including US Government Servers

Posted by 882542F3884314B 7 hours ago

Counter176Comment82OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by athrowaway3z 4 hours ago

> A1 — Memory Exhaustion (~383MB):

I'm actually somewhat surprised at the clumsiness here.

I'm a complete amateur that had DeepSeek build a PHP2Shell exploit, and once the stealmybitcoin site went up and set an upload limit, i had DeepSeek try to shrink/amplify it.

DeepSeek couldn't find anything but a 2x reduction, but reading the report of how it was done - https://github.com/KillaBoi/StealMyBitcoin-PoC - I was somewhat surprised it didn't find it, and equally horrified at PHP allowing such a memory bomb of creating nested objects by parsing `f[0][x][x]...` from random requests.

Point being; these aren't amateurs but i kind of expect most well funded pros to have found this method to avoid sending massive filenames and session progress data.

Comment by rootsudo 3 hours ago

Interesting, my deepseek session did find it.

Comment by iririririr 1 hour ago

this featured is disabled in any security conscious deployed (which doesn't seem to be the case for some large firewall vendor)

Comment by colemannugent 2 hours ago

Reading this I'm almost certain the firewall vendor is Palo Alto Networks. They included a PAN-OS setting verbatim and the SELinux config matches my experience.

Comment by tiberious726 9 minutes ago

This makes me kinda furious. The us government makes me so much goddamned work to comply with their cyber security regulations (only about half of which actually contribute to my security posture), and here they are running their fucking firewall management page publicly exposed (the globalprotect portal was not vulnerable, only the _actual_ management page).

Comment by theMMaI 2 hours ago

Further indication is that PHP 7.4.33 and PHP 8.30.0 are mentioned which are an exact match for PAN-OS 11.1/11.2 and 12.1/12.2 respectively

Comment by elevation 2 hours ago

Why does a world-class firewall stack need PHP? I'm sure PAN-OS has some neat DPI features, but I would love to see firewalls that are implemented in FPGA, where the tasking was compiled down to gates to be performed deterministically, much like the low port count network switches we have today.

Comment by tredre3 1 hour ago

What else would you use to power the configuration gui frontend? Allow me to eliminate some of the obvious and inevitable answers:

- Rust didn't exist at the time

- Go didn't exist at the time

- nodejs didn't exist at the time

- Java and Python likely used too much resources for a once-in-a-while used GUI

Irrational hatred aside, that's literally what PHP was designed for.

Comment by cesarb 46 minutes ago

> What else would you use to power the configuration gui frontend?

Perl?

Comment by seanhunter 11 minutes ago

For some reason I’m not allowed to respond to the child comment so I’m putting this here:

Perl 5 was released in 1994. Palo Alto Networks was founded in 2005, so Perl 5 was certainly available when they built their first products and would have been a superior choice to either PHP or Perl 4.

Comment by topham 16 minutes ago

You win.

Perl 4 specifically of course though.

Comment by clbrmbr 1 hour ago

public markets point to FORTINET

Comment by xxmarkuski 4 hours ago

Dream is btw founded and led by Sebastian Kurz, who was head of the Austrian government. He had to step down because of a corruption scandal.

Comment by Topfi 3 hours ago

For our US friends, as context, this is akin to Rudy Giuliani being a cybersecurity expert. Partly, because it simply never was Sebastian Kurzs area of expertise, mainly because the referenced corruption scandal centered around the use of Whatsapp to facilitate said corruption, so, you know...

Comment by m3rc 3 hours ago

Well it's more like Rudy Giuliani starting a bitcoin company regardless of his expertise in any one particular area right, which basically has happened a couple times now: https://www.ai-cio.com/news/former-associates-rudy-giuliani-...

Comment by toomuchtodo 2 hours ago

The NY politician to grifter pipeline is interesting (Giuliani, Adams, Cuomo).

Comment by rotis 2 hours ago

He has already IT experience then. Surely he learned something out of it. Securely using apps. Discretely handling deals, etc.

Anyway from their webpage: > We work directly with heads of state, ministries, national cyber authorities, and the senior officials responsible for executing national strategy.

So I presume he has and provides contacts. Just the usual one hand washes the other. Nothing nefarious I'm sure.

Comment by ungut 1 hour ago

LMAO, you mean he learned to install Signal and turn on disappearing messages after all of his chat messages, obviously implying corrupt political practices, were read in a special government committee? The guy doesn't even know what DHCP is, "I'm sure". I almost feel bad that company is getting traffic from HN. Kurz is such a disgusting little worm.

Comment by cookiengineer 4 hours ago

One of the three co-founders also founded NSO Group, and was developing the Pegasus malware.

Just for context, that is the type of evil we're talking about here.

A German comedian made an episode about it [1]

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=_PF23EdGNcE

Comment by 4798642799 3 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by 3 hours ago

Comment by loeg 52 minutes ago

> For security purposes, we are not disclosing the vendor or the affected versions

Wat

Comment by tensegrist 5 hours ago

Comment by Vaushite 4 hours ago

Extremely wrong. I'm not sure how "RCE on every PHP server, from anywhere on the internet, no other requirements" could possibly be underblown by anyone. Exploiting the PHP request parser bypasses basically all security checks and it doesn't matter how secure your code is because the exploitable component runs before your code and can't be disabled.

I am very curious to hear why you thought it was overblown.

There was also that other guy who posted "steal my bitcoin" on a vulnerable PHP server with the private keys to prove it was overblown, and got his bitcoin stolen within a day.

Comment by jerf 3 hours ago

"There was also that other guy who posted "steal my bitcoin" on a vulnerable PHP server with the private keys to prove it was overblown, and got his bitcoin stolen within a day."

19 hours: https://stealmybitcoin.com/

Part of the confusion is that the initial PR for the release made it sound like there was a ready-to-go exploit that was just push button, get shell on any PHP server in the world. That turned out not to be the case, as evidenced by the fact that the number was 19 hours and not 19 minutes.

But the fact that it was 19 hours and not "never" also does provide a data point that everything that was vulnerable really was vulnerable, it just may not have been quite as vulnerable as it was initially presented. Still plenty vulnerable, of course.

My point here being that the initial 24 hours were very confusing and I think it's worth remembering that and giving people grace for it. Even now, I've heard rumors of an exploit that does work on all boxes without making changes for a specific target but I'm not actually sure whether that exists or not. (Any further info welcome.)

Comment by NitpickLawyer 3 hours ago

It's not 19hours. The server was originally configured with no running php. Once they added a php file, the server got pwned in 2 hours.

Comment by jerf 2 hours ago

Interesting. I did not know that. (Obviously.)

Comment by kylestanfield 1 hour ago

In online communities right now there’s a lot of demand for evidence of LLM capabilities being overblown. It’s unfortunate that even if the steal my bitcoin creator apologizes for spreading misinformation due to incompetence, the truth won’t be spread as widely.

Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago

Shutting down half the internet was the right move. If it took someone 19 hours to exploit a site, you'd better have shut it down before 19 hours and not after.

I don't see what was confusing about the initial 24 hours. GP was correct, the description of the bug made it clear it was a very high risk.

Comment by beepbooptheory 3 hours ago

Also, unless I am reading this wrong, it does not seem like what actually got the bitcoin was a 2shell-like exploit? Seems like memory corruption leading to printing out the flag through just http requests? How would you use this outside of a CTF context?

https://github.com/KillaBoi/StealMyBitcoin-PoC

Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago

2shell is catchy shorthand for "do anything". log4shell (originator of the name?) didn't directly give you a shell either, it ran some Java code. You could have a shell if you wanted to.

Comment by jstanley 4 hours ago

> I'm not sure how "RCE on every PHP server, from anywhere on the internet, no other requirements" could possibly be underblown by anyone

It could be overblown if it's not true. The amount of time it took for anyone to claim the Bitcoin from the supposedly-vulnerable PHP site convinced a lot of people that the vulnerability was not as bad as claimed.

Comment by tkz1312 4 hours ago

wasn't it setup in an unexploitable configuration (not actually serving a php page IIRC?) for most of the time, and then got popped within like 2 hours once fixed?

Comment by lifeisloving 4 hours ago

The point is, under normal configurations when you're serving the PHP server correctly with table-stakes best practices the server is not exploitable

This was not a scary vuln at all.

Comment by literalAardvark 1 hour ago

Under normal configurations the server is highly exploitable.

It's a horrible vuln and I don't understand what's with all the flat infosec society coming out of the woodwork.

The challenge server had vibe coded infra that made it hard or impossible to hack, but it was a configuration that can't be used in production and no one uses ( it was deployed as a PHP static content server instead of a dynamic site generator )

Comment by pixl97 28 minutes ago

>I don't understand what's with all the flat infosec society coming out of the woodwork.

Ha, while most of these are probably humans that are just being driven mad by AI, I wonder how long before we get AI driven botnets that try to under play any security vulns to give them more time to take over and collect assets for themselves?

Comment by Urd- 3 hours ago

Normal configuration of a PHP server is to not run any PHP code and serve a static html file?

Comment by lifeisloving 2 hours ago

Where is all the evidence of exploits if most of the webs PHP servers were vulnerable?

This is a seperate chained exploit itself, seemingly executed by a nation stae. There are thousands of exploits infiltrating web servers around the world daily, and they arent php2shell.

You only care about this because it falls into a weird viral narrative about "AI saftey".

Comment by literalAardvark 1 hour ago

There's nothing separate about this.

Chained just means they used php2shell to run a local privilege escalation.

Comment by lifeisloving 46 minutes ago

Was the exploit not dependent on a kernel exploit that was disclosed and patched in may, or am I just hallucinating?

Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago

Which best practices did you use to prevent exploitability?

And would you stake your bitcoin on it?

Comment by devin 1 hour ago

I had a similar take, but I was wrong.

Comment by lifeisloving 44 minutes ago

How were you wrong? Out of 15k targets scanned they arrived at 25 servers total.

Comment by 1718627440 4 hours ago

> I am very curious to hear why you thought it was overblown.

Not having made the claim (took down my website too), but because PHP is not connected directly to the network. While you cannot prevent PHP from being overtaken from inside the PHP program, you can prevent PHP being executed on malicious data by configuring the webserver. It's overblown in the sense that it would be even more serious if the same happened in the webserver itself.

Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago

Can you? Initial suggestions to block multipart content-types were a red herring.

Comment by 1718627440 3 hours ago

In theory yes. In practice, I don't know, I hope my provider patched it properly.

Comment by cowlevel 2 hours ago

What specific configuration would you recommend to block the vulnerability without actually patching it?

Comment by 1718627440 2 hours ago

None. Like I wrote "I don't know, I hope my provider patched it properly."

Comment by cowlevel 2 hours ago

Then why did you say

> you can prevent PHP being executed on malicious data by configuring the webserver.

Comment by 1718627440 1 hour ago

You can do this. I don't know how, and I don't think it's a feasible use of my time, to find out how. It's obviously computable on a Turing machine, because they were able to patch PHP.

Comment by cowlevel 1 hour ago

So it was useless advice? You presented it as if anyone not following the advice is incompetent, now you suggest nobody knows how to do it. Is everyone incompetent?

Comment by 1718627440 43 minutes ago

What? I never claimed it was "advice"? I explained how other people could have arrived at the conclusion that there can be worse things than a single language interpreter being vulnerable to a unconditional RCE. Were you answering to the wrong comment?

Comment by kxrm 36 minutes ago

> I don't know how

You are spreading misinformation then.

The configuration change was never a full protection from this vulnerability because the problem is with how PHP processed the request well before the configuration or your PHP code was executed.

Comment by 1718627440 27 minutes ago

> You are spreading misinformation then.

?

> because the problem is with how PHP processed the request well before the configuration or your PHP code was executed.

That's what I wrote? You can't do anything once PHP executed. It could still be worse, because you can still prevent PHP from running, because there is still the webserver before. If it were in the webserver itself, you couldn't do anything, short of stopping the server from running.

> The configuration change was never a full protection from this vulnerability

It is, if the configuration change prevents PHP from running. That's how you could say it is overblown. You are not vulnerable if you don't run PHP.

Comment by jstanley 2 hours ago

Configure your webserver to not execute PHP code.

Comment by jrflo 3 hours ago

I think it goes back to the huge amount of anti-AI sentiment that's out there today. Any AI accomplishment gets undersold by haters, i.e. people maintaining that the Navier-Stokes solution was stolen, people saying that Lean proofs can't be relied on, exploits like PHP2Shell are esoteric and not usable in the real-world, etc. Those are just comments I recall reading off the top of my head but I could find sources if anyone wants. I think it's just a way for people to cope and fool themselves into thinking that this whole AI thing isn't a big deal and will just blow over.

Comment by lifeisloving 4 hours ago

Its overblown in the sense that 70% of the internet was not in fact vulnerable, as widely reported. And not everyone is a hackor because they have access to llms. Go look at normie coverage from people like Linus tech tips and you'll see them saying how millions of servers were under attack by script kiddies with llms, amd how llms are so dangerous.

The whole thing was basically a psyop, whether intential or not idk but Califs research was funded in part by OpenAI so there's that.

Comment by robby_w_g 3 hours ago

I agree. There's nuance to it. I believe the CVE was overblown, and I also believe that it is a severe vulnerability that should be addressed ASAP. 2 things can be true at once.

It was OpenAI's marketing that hyped up the vulnerability to the point that guys on my hockey team saw it in the news and were asking about it. There doesn't need to be mainstream articles about it, these kinds of vulnerabilities happen every year. Just patch and move on.

Comment by literalAardvark 1 hour ago

The CVE was not overblown. It's correctly marked as a 9.2.

Random bloggers jumped on it and said dumb blogger things. That is all.

This is one of the worst vulns ever and the security response from the people who actually secure things for a living was entirely warranted regardless of whether some blogger thought it was the AI apocalypse or not.

Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago

This was a vulnerability worse than Heartbleed. Did they hear about Heartbleed?

Comment by Topfi 3 hours ago

Respect, hats off to reevaluate when presented with the info. Will fully admit, I myself lacked the ability to assess the true severity, mainly cause I try to stay away from PHP since my first encounter in sixth grade, so was going a bit back-and-forth due to what I was reading.

Mainly saw the severity in the economic impact of having to quickly patch so much, but taking offline being the right choice given the risk, along with of course all the decades old, never patches, blogs being botnet targets someday in the future, akin to Wordpress being commonly used for Ransomware hosting for similar reasons. And of course hopefully learning something from the timeline and leak for future disclosures. Feel things need to generally change from the status quo, barely has changed since the 2015 Google/MSFT squabble...

Comment by rkozik1989 5 hours ago

Yes, you were. These exploits are happening in processes like php-fpm before it actually executes any code for the web application, so its not like you need to find endpoint where a specific class is being invoked or anything like that.

Comment by aaomidi 4 hours ago

I commend you to having corrected your thoughts this publicly fwiw.

We need more of this.

Comment by codegeek 4 hours ago

I am confused. Is this attack possible even after the PHP patches OR these servers just didn't patch ?

Comment by jdiff 4 hours ago

> The affected devices run specific versions of a large vendor’s firewall software.

And the vendor's firewall software runs an unpatched version.

Comment by sznio 3 hours ago

I bet it's fortinet.

Comment by theMMaI 2 hours ago

Or Palo Alto networks

Comment by colemannugent 2 hours ago

This is 100% PAN-OS

Comment by j45 40 minutes ago

Wild, I hope the challenge on HN didn't contribute to this.

Comment by bix6 3 hours ago

It sounds like multiple things were misconfigured on these servers and they still have access?!?

Comment by brcmthrowaway 1 hour ago

With software being fundamentally unsafe I see everything hardwired in chips.

FPGA stocks? DV is about to become hot again..

Comment by tamimio 3 hours ago

Firewalls are likely fortinet

Comment by kekub 2 hours ago

Nah, I guess it is Palo Alto. PHP and Appweb is their stack AFAIK. Forti does not use PHP, Juniper uses Appweb with PHP but on FreeBSD - but the article mentions SELinux.

Comment by npn 2 hours ago

> Claude Code had been installed

I just do not understand. CC is not the sole harness in the world, why the attackers insist to use it.

Comment by paxy 3 hours ago

Now let’s watch the goalposts shift in real time about how severe this vulnerability is.

Comment by ofjcihen 3 hours ago

Most goalposts I’ve seen say “bad but clumsy”.

Believe it or not in cybersecurity there are many considerations in how “bad” a vulnerability is.

Comment by pixl97 57 minutes ago

With all that said, how exploit chaining is working these days I think most peoples considerations are not weighted toward bad enough.

Comment by jvandijk 3 hours ago

Haha woopsie

Comment by lunargamma676 5 hours ago

Same here, though what stuck with me is that a firewall's admin PHP page was reachable from the internet at all, keep that on a mgmt VLAN.

Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago

it probably starts with a correct and safe authorization check, but this vulnerability happens before any user code runs, so every PHP page is vulnerable.

Comment by bell-cot 3 hours ago

True-ish? If your firewall's admin page is internet-accessible, you have no excuse for not doing "bolted to bedrock" lockdowns of your web server config and your PHP config. Either of which could have blocked exploitation of the PHP vuln.

Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago

What's the right level of lockdown? Starting a page with "if not authorized, return 403" would've seemed adequate before this.

Comment by bell-cot 2 hours ago

I'd suggest reading https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/php.ini-productio..., then doing a web search for "editing php.ini for maximum security".

Maybe compare with https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/php.ini-developme..., too.

Then similar for your web server (Apache, nginx, whatever).

EDIT: About your "would've seemed adequate before this" - I dug up a copy of a PHP v5.2 php.ini file (2-ish decades ago). That file begins thus:

   ;;;;;;;;;;;
   ; WARNING ;
   ;;;;;;;;;;;
   ; This is the default settings file for new PHP installations.
   ; By default, PHP installs itself with a configuration suitable for
   ; development purposes, and *NOT* for production purposes.
   ; For several security-oriented considerations that should be taken
   ; before going online with your site, please consult php.ini-recommended
   ; and http://php.net/manual/en/security.php.

Comment by cowlevel 1 hour ago

Zero of these recommendations have anything to do with the present vulnerability.