About the reported beSTORM “Vulnerability”

A few people asked me about the advisory posted on exploit db (Now also on SecurityFocus) that talks about a security vulnerability in beSTORM, which would be ironic since it’s a fairly simple vulnerability to find by fuzzing, and beSTORM is, after all, a fuzzer.

I always thought security holes in security products were especially funny. You expect security companies to know better, right? Well, as usual, it’s much less funny when it happens to you. Seeing reports about a vulnerability in beSTORM wasn’t amusing.

The thing is, the vulnerability is not in beSTORM, it is not remote, and on top of all – the exploit PoC does not work as advertised. Now comes the second irony: I’ve been on the management team of a security database for the past 14 years, and I’m sure more than one vendor cursed me to walk a mile in their shoes. Well, vendors: I am! Trying to explain to vulnerability databases that just because someone posted something doesn’t mean it’s true, is not easy. But you knew that already.

Now for the details:

The vulnerability described is a problem in WizGraphviz.dll, a graphic library that has been abandoned by its developer. It is not a part of beSTORM, and never was. You could, in early versions of beSTORM, install that DLL in order to view SVG files. beSTORM would have downloaded it on request. But it hasn’t been the case in a while now.

The vulnerability is also not remote. This ActiveX is marked not safe for scripting, which means you have to manually enable it to get the exploit code to run.

In other words, you need to download an ActiveX from the Internet, go into the settings to mark it safe for scripting (and ignore the huge warnings) and then you will be vulnerable to an ActiveX attack when visiting a rogue site. And all this is only true for an old version of beSTORM which is no longer available for download.

Life is full of ironies: This attack is simple enough that we could (should?) have found it by fuzzing this DLL ourselves. Hell, there’s a good chance the good guys that published this advisory did exactly that. For being lazy, we deserve the public flogging. But just to set the record straight, a security vulnerability it ain’t.




  • dookie200ca

    Thanks for the insight. We’ve removed the offending entry from EDB.

    • aviramj

      Thanks guys!

  • coolkaveh

    Dear securiteam if i were you i wouldn’t call it ironic. heap over flow exist which i found as you are a security guy with 14 years experience you would know that ppl usually accepts ActiveX loading if is
    marked not safe for scripting and if you believe
    a security vulnerability it ain’t i am happy i dont have that kind of 14 years experience