Soluzioni Corporate di backup Alessandro Stesi

Corporate backup solutions Self-protection tests

Introduction

Corporate backup solutions: In light of the growing number of ransomware attacks in which cryptolockers stop database processes to unlock database files for encryption (Cerber, GlobeImposter, Rapid, Serpent) and they can encrypt local and network backups to request a ransom payment (Rapid, Spora), we decided to test the self-protection capabilities of the best backup solutions used in the corporate environments available for testing.

The test aims to check the sustainability of the processes and services of the products against the typical attacks on the security software described below, as well as the self-protection of the local backup and of the product files. Ransomware can encrypt configuration files and local backup files that belong to a backup program by disabling file recovery. In addition, once access to the agent or server processes is obtained, the attacker can delete backup copies of files not only locally, but also in the cloud on behalf of a backup solution.

This document is a summary of the enterprise backup solutions test report and includes a description of the test environment, a list of tested solutions and their versions, an overview of test scenarios, as well as results and conclusions based on these results. We do not classify the tested solutions and do not award any prize, but we provide the results “as is” for informational purposes only.

 

Testing environment

The tests were conducted on the virtual machines of:

 – Windows 8.1 SP1 32 bit build 9600

 – Windows 10 Enterprise 64 bit Build 16299

 – Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard 64 bit v. 6.3.9600 Build 9600

We have tested backup solutions on platforms
32 and 64 bit because the process injection techniques used in the test scenarios differ on these platforms. In addition, 32 and 64 bit product builds may contain a different set of features, including self-protection, and their implementation may depend on the architecture of the operating system.

 

Tested products

Corporate backup solutions: The most recent versions of the following products available at the time of testing were tested:

Product name

Components

Version

Management Server

Agent

12.5 9010

12.5 9010

Unified Data Protection Server

Unified Data Protection Client

6.5.4175 Aggiornamento 2 Build 667

6.5.4175.791 v.r6.5

Backup & Replication

Agent for Microsoft Windows

9.5 Aggiornamento 3

2.1.0.423

Veritas Backup Exec

Server

Agent Utility pour Windows

16.0 Rev. 1142

16.0 Rev. 1142-1632

 

Each product was installed with the default settings and updated before running the test.

 

Corporate backup solutions – Test scenarios

The test suite includes 31 tests that simulate attacks on local backup files, product files, processes, services and cloud storage that aim to block the backup and restore service. The “Product File Protection” test category contains simple tests aimed at destroying backup and application files making it impossible to recover data encrypted by ransomware.

The second group of tests “Protection of processes and products services” is essential for self-protection since the malware can inject the malicious code into a backup agent and act on behalf of a backup solution obtaining all the necessary privileges to check the backup files. At the behest of an attacker, a malicious process can interrupt processes and services with consequent blocking of the backup and restore application

or deleting backup files on behalf of a backup solution. The latest series of tests is “Cloud backup and recovery protection” and is addressed to communication interfaces with cloud storage. The attack of DNS poisoning or the improper use of the CLI can cause the cloud backup service to be interrupted.

 

Corporate backup solutions – Conclusions

The purpose of the test was to verify the backup software’s self-protection capabilities to protect related files, processes, services and cloud storage from scenarios that can potentially be run by ransomware.

The results showed that most of the tested products are not ready in many cases to counter ransomware-type attacks by allowing a potential attacker to block user backups and disable backup and restore services. Only Acronis Backup has shown good results with an 87% and 81% effectiveness rate for 32-bit and 64-bit products, similarly providing complete self-protection and service sustainability features.

Download the complete department here: Nio Guard Independent Study_IT

 

[btnsx id=”2931″]

Related articles:

Modern Data Protection: The Difference is in the Cloud

BaaS | Acronis Cloud Backup

BaaS | Cloud Backup | Backup as a Service

[Name change] Acronis Data Cloud –> Acronis Cyber Cloud

Stay in control of your fast-moving, quick-shifting data

A Hybrid Cloud Backup Solution for System Integrator and reseller

Share


RSS

More Articles…

Categories …

Tags

RSS feed: Unknown Feed Unknown Feed

RSS feed: Full Disclosure Full Disclosure

  • Apache Struts2 Core Arbitrary Code Execution via OGNL Sandbox Escape November 2, 2026
    Posted by Daniel Owens via Fulldisclosure on Nov 01Description Apache Struts2 Core version 7.4.0 and below attempt to prevent arbitrary code execution via Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL) through several different mechanisms but only in a cursory fashion -- the libraries only guard against immediate calls evaluated by the OGNL engine via `SecurityMemberAccess`, but an allowed […]
  • Apache Struts2 Core TokenHelper Token Cryptographic Timing Side-Channel November 2, 2026
    Posted by Daniel Owens via Fulldisclosure on Nov 01Description The Apache Struts2 Core 7.4.0 and below performs session token comparisons cryptographically insecure early-exit comparison functions (e.g., `!=`, `memcmp`, byte-by-byte loops with `break`) that return as soon as the first mismatched byte is encountered. The execution time of the comparison is therefore proportional to the number […]
  • Apache Struts2 Spring Plugin Uses a Previously Closed Resource November 2, 2026
    Posted by Daniel Owens via Fulldisclosure on Nov 01Description The Apache Struts2 Spring Plugin opens a Spring `ApplicationContex` via a try-with-resources block and, outside of said block, then continues to use the closed resource, resulting in an uncaught `IllegalStateException`. This particular issue prevents proper functionality and indicates poor code quality and code review standards and […]
  • Apache Struts2 Core Integer Overflow November 2, 2026
    Posted by Daniel Owens via Fulldisclosure on Nov 01Description Apache Struts2 Core version 7.4.0 and below fails to properly prevent integer overflows, causing wrap-arounds and other issues on a downstream forced casting into types smaller than `BigInteger`. Importantly, this finding underscores why all applications using Struts and other such platforms should perform their own input […]
  • Apache Struts2 Core Cross-Origin Protection Exemption Miskeyed to a Deployment-Wide Path November 2, 2026
    Posted by Daniel Owens via Fulldisclosure on Nov 01Description Apache Struts2 Core version 7.4.0 and below's `FetchMetadataInterceptor`, `CoepInterceptor`, and `CoopInterceptor` each compare their `exemptedPaths` configuration -- a per-interceptor-reference, administrator-supplied set of paths intended to exempt specific actions from the corresponding cross-origin protection -- against `HttpServletRequest.getContextPath()`. `getContextPath()` is fixed for the entire deployed web...
  • Apache Struts2 REST Plugin Fails to Properly Parse Chunked Requests November 2, 2026
    Posted by Daniel Owens via Fulldisclosure on Nov 01Description The Apache Struts2 REST Plugin's (version 7.4.0 and below) `ContentTypeInterceptor.intercept(ActionInvocation)` only deserialises a request body and enforces the `struts.rest.content.maxLength` bound when `HttpServletRequest#getContentLength()` returns a positive value. `getContentLength()` returns `-1` whenever the `Content-Length` header is absent, which normal and appropriate for any Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)...
  • Apache Struts2 REST Plugin Untrimmed `Accept` Header Tokens Break Content Negation Fallback November 2, 2026
    Posted by Daniel Owens via Fulldisclosure on Nov 01Description The Apache Struts2 REST Plugin's `DefaultContentTypeHandlerManager.getHandlerForResponse(HttpServletRequest, HttpServletResponse)` splits the `Accept` header on commas and passes each resulting token directly to `findHandler(String)` without trimming leading or trailing whitespace. `findHandler(String)` only retries a trimmed lookup when a token contains a semicolon (`;`), so a token that merely carries […]
  • Apache Struts2 JSON Plugin Insecure Deserialisation -- Object Deserialisation Element-Count Limit Bypass November 2, 2026
    Posted by Daniel Owens via Fulldisclosure on Nov 01As of the current versions of the Apache Struts2 JSON Plugin (e.g., version 7.4.0 and the 7.5.0 snapshot dated 28 October 2026), attackers can bypass the element-count limit purported to protect Object deserialisation added to said code as part of the WW-5618 and S2-072 "hardening controls". Please […]
  • [0day-rubbish] NETGEAR RAX120 V1.2.5.18 authenticated SOAP InstallApp OS command injection to root-configured web-stack execution (6.8 Medium; conditionally 7.2 High with management exposure) October 29, 2026
    Posted by disclosure via Fulldisclosure on Oct 280day Rubbish Research Team is publicly disclosing a vulnerability in NETGEAR RAX120 (Nighthawk AX12) firmware V1.2.5.18, the WiFi 6 consumer router from NETGEAR (United States), built on the Qualcomm IPQ8074 platform. The administrative web plane of this firmware generation is a lighttpd server fronting the vendor's DNI-framework CGI […]
  • [0day-rubbish] Raritan PX3 PDU G4 firmware 4.3.14 command injection in the ping and traceroute diagnostics through an inverted hostname-validation return check (8.8) October 29, 2026
    Posted by disclosure via Fulldisclosure on Oct 280day Rubbish Research Team is publicly disclosing a vulnerability in the Raritan PX3 PDU G4, firmware version 4.3.14, the intelligent rack power distribution unit from Raritan, a Legrand company (United States). A low-privilege authenticated session converts one diagnostics request into operating-system command execution in the product's web-service context, […]

Customers