Vulnerabilities / Threats

9/26/2017
05:38 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Popular Mobile Trading Apps Riddled With Vulnerabilities, Security Firm Warns

IOActive's review of 21 of the most used mobile apps for investment trading shows a majority of them exposing users to various security risks.

Many of the most popular mobile investment trading applications that people use to buy and sell stocks, monitor positions, and conduct other transactions are riddled with vulnerabilities that have left them wide open to malicious abuse, according to research released today by IOActive.

Security vendor IOActive recently reviewed 21 of the most popular mobile trading applications on Google Play and Apple Store. The applications enable users to do a variety of things, including buying and selling stock, funding accounts, keeping track of equity and available buying power, and creating alerts for specific thresholds.

IOActive tested a set of 14 security controls across the applications, including support for biometric authentication, encryption, session management, client-side data management, secure data storage, sensitive data in logs, and root detection. The tests were conducted on trading apps installed on an iPhone 6 running iOS 10.3.3 and a rooted Android device running version 7.1.1 of the operating system.

The exercise showed that some of the most well known and most used mobile trading apps are even more insecure than some personal banking apps were back in 2013 when IOActive conducted similar tests, says Alejandro Hernandez, senior security consultant for IOActive.

Four of the applications for instance stored the user's password in plaintext without encryption in either a configuration file within the phone or in the logging console. Most of the tested applications did not implement two-factor authentication and required only the current password to link to bank accounts.

More than 60 percent of the tested applications stored data such as account balances and investment portfolios in unencrypted fashion or in the logging console. Someone with access to a phone containing a vulnerable trading app could use the log data for a variety of malicious purposes. "The user would never have to see the logging console, but for attackers with physical access to the phone it’s a gold mine. Data in the log files can also be read by other applications, including malware, thereby opening a way for remote data exfiltration," Hernandez says.

Several of the weaknesses that IOActive discovered in the mobile applications that it tested could only be exploited with physical access to the device on which they were installed. "On the other hand, if the phone is stolen or lost, it’s easy to extract valuable information, such as the investment portfolio and money balances," Hernandez says.

Other vulnerabilities could be remotely exploited. Two applications, for instance, used an insecure HTTP channel to transmit and receive all information, including usernames, passwords, and all trading data. "This could be exploited by an attacker in the middle, either in the same WiFi network or at some other point [such as] a compromised switch or router in an ISP," Hernandez says.

Of the remaining 19 applications that used a secure HTTPS channel, 13 did not authenticate the remote server with which they communicated. "This is known as SSL pinning, and if not implemented, the chance for a remote attack is higher," Hernandez says. Attackers for instance have an opportunity to trick users into installing a false SSL certificate on their device in order to carry out Man-In-The-Middle attacks, he notes. Ten of the applications that IOActive tested were configured to execute JavaScript code, giving attackers a way to trigger Cross-Site Scripting attacks.

More than 60% of the apps had sensitive data like cryptographic keys and third-party service partner passwords hardcoded in the apps, while 10 had data, such as internal hostnames and IP addresses of the internal environments where the apps were developed or tested.

"This would give attackers [a way] to understand some of the internal network configurations of those brokerage firms or [the] companies that developed the apps," Hernandez said.

IOActive has sent a report detailing its research findings to 13 brokerage firms whose trading apps had some of the more high-risk vulnerabilities. So far, only two have responded, the company said.

Related content:

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity agenda here.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
White House Cybersecurity Strategy at a Crossroads
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/17/2018
The Fundamental Flaw in Security Awareness Programs
Ira Winkler, CISSP, President, Secure Mentem,  7/19/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14492
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-21
Tenda AC7 through V15.03.06.44_CN, AC9 through V15.03.05.19(6318)_CN, and AC10 through V15.03.06.23_CN devices have a Stack-based Buffer Overflow via a long limitSpeed or limitSpeedup parameter to an unspecified /goform URI.
CVE-2018-3770
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
A path traversal exists in markdown-pdf version <9.0.0 that allows a user to insert a malicious html code that can result in reading the local files.
CVE-2018-3771
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
An XSS in statics-server <= 0.0.9 can be used via injected iframe in the filename when statics-server displays directory index in the browser.
CVE-2018-5065
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader 2018.011.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30080 and earlier, and 2015.006.30418 and earlier versions have a Use-after-free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user.
CVE-2018-5066
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader 2018.011.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30080 and earlier, and 2015.006.30418 and earlier versions have an Out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure.