Advanced Bug Bounty Strategies: Leveraging Automatic Tools

Advanced Bug Bounty Strategies: Leveraging Automatic Tools – Number of Error Bytes 174 From $0 to $150,000 Prize Hacking Summer Course and How to Hack Apache Pinot

Bug Bytes is a weekly newsletter curated by members of the bug bounty community. The first series was produced by Mariem or also known as PentesterLand. Every week he updates us with a comprehensive list of articles, tools, guides, and resources.

Advanced Bug Bounty Strategies: Leveraging Automatic Tools

If you’re having trouble finding your first mistake, this video might give you new ideas to try. @_zwink shares the multi-step formula he used to grow his rewards from $0 in the first month to $150,000 in less than a year and a half.

Hackerone Product Portfolio

@SonarSource has discovered an interesting vulnerability that allows an unauthenticated attacker to steal Zimbra user credentials via non-interactive Memcache injection.

@TzahPahima shares information about a multi-tenant vulnerability in Azure Synapse that could compromise the account credentials of Azure Synapse customers, including Microsoft!

The third post shows an interesting bug hunting strategy: @rotembar, @realgam3, and @naglinagli discovered that their target was using a specific WordPress plugin, they analyzed one of the patched vulnerabilities, found a new error, and reviewed historical information to find it. other vulnerable targets.

This is a useful reminder @Trustwave that some configuration and network issues can hinder security testing and vulnerability scanning. It’s good to know to avoid false negatives.

Effective Mobile Testing Strategy To Help Streamline Testing

@haqpl demonstrated a new CSS filtering technique that takes advantage of Chrome’s new scroll-to-text snippet feature. It has some limitations but can be useful in leaking information about an app’s users, and you should know if you’re worried about XSleaks attacks and CSS filtering.

The second @Doyensec article is a great resource on how to hack Apache Pinot. It explains what Pinot is, how to set up a test environment, how to use the Pinot database for SQL injection, RCE, and post-exploitation.

Both @offsectraining and @TCMSecurity announced that they will be broadcasting free hacking courses on Twitch starting June 22.

We use some necessary cookies to collect information and improve your experience on our platform. We would also like to ask for your consent to use advertising cookies to improve our commercial insights. For more information, see our cookie policy and privacy statement. I agree No thanks. Many security tools are needed to protect an organization or web application from vulnerabilities. Bug bounty programs and automated security scans are two growing areas of cybersecurity used by many businesses today. In this article, we look at how debugging and automation complement each other to help make web applications more secure.

Bug Bounty Vs. Pentest [differences Explained]

Many people have heard of automated web security or debuggers and may even use them as part of their security strategy. Bug bounty programs invite ethical hackers to report security vulnerabilities on their websites in exchange for a reward, usually a sum of money. Automated scanners like Detectify effectively perform scheduled and extensive scans of your web applications to check for common vulnerabilities.

At Detectify, the security tests built into our scanners come from our internal team and the Detectify Crowdsource network of over 150 white hat hackers. These two layers of security complement each other and leverage common knowledge to provide better coverage. We’ve highlighted some of the benefits of combining bug fixing and automated security testing.

Maximize the value of your remediation program Automated scanners are effective in testing the security of your web applications at scale and detecting small weaknesses. This allows you to tailor the scope of your error prevention program to key touchpoints. Automated solutions can collect common vulnerabilities, such as the OWASP Top 10, while bug hunters can dig deeper into your code and provide sophisticated hacks, such as ACME XSS or upload policy exploits. At Detectify, we have top-rated ethical hackers on our team, which means we can automate cutting-edge research like the above into our tools.

Continuous coverage Bug bounty programs have become a valuable asset for security teams because they can get help from ethical hackers tailored to their needs. Submissions can be made at organized events such as Bugcrowd or Hackerone, or throughout the year if there is a public bug fix program. Some security teams deploy automated security scanners to test web application security every week in between bug fixes. This provides consistent coverage and prevents common errors that developers can easily overcome in a dynamic scanning environment.

Securing Cloud Native Applications In Devsecops

Increase security awareness within your organization By working with ethical hackers on a debugging program or platform like Detectify Crowdsource, you’ll get results on the vulnerabilities you discover, proof of concept, and proposed fixes. This provides guidance to security and development teams on how to detect them and perhaps build a prevention mindset.

Once our engineering team confirms that a vulnerability has been submitted to Detectify Crowdsource by an ethical hacker, we immediately incorporate it into our tool, making it available to all our customers. This allows knowledge to be shared across our customer base. We update our tools every two weeks to always put the security of all our customers first.

With Detectify, you can set the scanner to check for more than 1,000 known vulnerabilities across your domain or specific paths or subdomains. This can reduce the number of known bugs reported, and you can set the bug bounty scope to look for things that are outside the scope of Detectify, which are usually more complex bugs found deeper in the system. You can also include post-login scanning as well as subdomain takeover testing with our domain monitoring service.

When Detectify lists the vulnerabilities it finds, the information is displayed in the tool along with instructions on how to find code errors, an explanation of each error, and remediation tips. This information is available to all users, meaning security teams and developers can access the same information and remediate vulnerabilities once the scan is complete.

Talking Sast, Appsec Tools & False Positives With Florin Coada

If your bug detection program detects false negatives, we can perform security testing of the scanner using the proof of concept provided by the bug finder. Your scanner will then be set up to monitor for future vulnerabilities.

“How does Detectify’s external attack surface management platform differ from penetration testing” or “I’m really looking for penetration testing” are two statements we…

We are proud to announce that Detectify has been included in Gartner’s 2023 External Attack Surface Management Competitive Landscape report. This message…

The increasing complexity of applications and networks means providing end-to-end application scanning and attack surface management is becoming increasingly important in…

Best Penetration Testing Tools For Security Testing

At Detectify, we pride ourselves on maintaining an AppSec perspective in how we approach security. But, what does it really mean? In short, our… endpoint detection and response (EDR) and anti-virus (AV) solutions play a critical role in protecting systems from malicious activity. However, as defenders improve their security posture, adversaries will adapt and develop sophisticated evasion techniques to slip through the cracks.

This article discusses some common evasion techniques that attackers use to bypass EDR and AV solutions.

Polymorphic malware is an adversary that can change shape, changing its code signature with each iteration, making it difficult for traditional signature-based AV solutions to detect. This technique allows malware to evade detection by appearing as completely new and unknown files to security scanners.

Fileless malware runs in memory without leaving a trace on disk, making it difficult for traditional AV solutions to identify and remove it. These attacks often use legitimate system processes and tools to execute malicious code, thereby evading detection by traditional file scanning methods.

Bug Tracking Effectively With The Right Tools

Attackers often use legitimate system tools and utilities such as PowerShell, Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI), and binaries to carry out malicious activities. Since this tool is operating system specific, it does not have the ability to provide alerts in EDR and AV solutions.

DLL sideloading involves loading a malicious dynamic link library (DLL) into a legitimate process, effectively hiding malicious activity within a trusted application. EDR solutions can have difficulty distinguishing between legitimate and malicious DLL files, resulting in threats going undetected.

Attackers use code injection techniques to inject malicious code into the memory space of legitimate processes. This method allows them to carry out malicious activities without creating new processes or files, thereby avoiding traditional detection methods that focus on creating processes and file operations.

Attackers use anti-analysis techniques to bypass automated analysis and sandbox systems. This may include detecting virtualized environments, delaying execution, or using termination mechanisms to prevent timely analysis of malicious code.

Automated Software Testing

Zero-day vulnerabilities, which are not identified by vendors and have no patches available, allow attackers to exploit systems without disrupting signature-based detection. EDR solutions that rely on known attack patterns may struggle to identify and respond to these new threats.

As the cat-and-mouse game between cybersecurity professionals and threat actors continues, understanding and mitigating evasion techniques is critical to maintaining a strong defense strategy.

Organizations must adopt a comprehensive approach, combining signature-based detection with advanced behavioral analysis, threat intelligence, and continuous monitoring to operate independently.