CVE-2015-7645 Detail

CVE-2015-7645

Score / Severity

7.8

High

EPSS

94.88%V3

Vector

Local

Published

2015-10-15
10h00 +00:00

Modified

2025-02-04
21h45 +00:00

Official links

CVE.org

NVD

Notifications for a CVE

Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.

Notifications manage

List of Notifications

Notifications for a CVE

Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.

Criteria applied when sending the alert: compared with the last alert sent + differences in CISA, EPSS, CVSS, CWE, Solutions, CPE.

Parameters

You can specify a title that will be retrieved in the alerts that will be sent out.

Specified here a CVE ID as CVE-2025-1234

Planning

Month

Next run calculation

Day

Weekday

Hour

Minute

Creation date

Last execution

Next execution

Functionality requiring a connection

This feature, which allows you to receive alerts, is only active when you are logged into your account.

CVE Descriptions

Adobe Flash Player 18.x through 18.0.0.252 and 19.x through 19.0.0.207 on Windows and OS X and 11.x through 11.2.202.535 on Linux allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted SWF file, as exploited in the wild in October 2015.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE Other	No informations.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	7.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H More informations Base: Exploitabilty Metrics The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. Required Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited. For example, a successful exploit may only be possible during the installation of an application by a system administrator. Base: Scope Metrics The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact Metrics The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal Metrics The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental Metrics These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.	[email protected]
V2	9.3		AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C	[email protected]

CISA KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities)

Vulnerability name : Adobe Flash Player Arbitrary Code Execution Vulnerability

Required action : The impacted product is end-of-life and should be disconnected if still in use.

Known To Be Used in Ransomware Campaigns : Unknown

Added : 2022-03-02 23h00 +00:00

Action is due : 2022-03-23 23h00 +00:00

Important information

This CVE is identified as vulnerable and poses an active threat, according to the Catalog of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (CISA KEV). The CISA has listed this vulnerability as actively exploited by cybercriminals, emphasizing the importance of taking immediate action to address this flaw. It is imperative to prioritize the update and remediation of this CVE to protect systems against potential cyberattacks.

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

EPSS First.org

Exploit information

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 38490

Publication date : 2015-10-18 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

Source: https://code.google.com/p/google-security-research/issues/detail?id=547 If IExternalizable.writeExternal is overridden with a value that is not a function, Flash assumes it is a function even though it is not one. This leads to execution of a 'method' outside of the ActionScript object's ActionScript vtable, leading to memory corruption. A sample swf is attached. ActionScript code is also attached, but it does not compile to the needed to swf. To get the PoC, decompress the swf using flasm -x myswf, and then search for "triteExternal" and change it to "writeExternal". This bug is in the AVM serializer (http://hg.mozilla.org/tamarin-redux/file/5571cf86fc68/core/AvmSerializer.cpp), and is type confusion when calling the method writeExternal, which is implemented when a class extends IExternalizable (http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/utils/IExternalizable.html). The method is resolved on line 1437 of AvmSerializer.cpp by calling toplevel->getBinding, which does not guarantee that the binding is a method binding. It then gets cast to a method on line 773 and called, which is type confusion. One challenge with the bug is actually creating a SWF which can hit this code, as usually overriding a defined method will lead to an illegal override exception. The 0-day author did this differently than I did. The code where all class properties (methods, internal classes, variables, etc.) are resolved is in http://hg.mozilla.org/tamarin-redux/file/5571cf86fc68/core/Traits.cpp. You can see on line 813 that a check that no two properties of a class have the same name is commented out due to some legitimate SWFs doing that. This means that a SWF can have a variable with the same name as a method (overriding a method with less restrictive method is still illegal), which is how my PoC overrode the method. The 0-day did something slightly different, it put the redefinition of writeExternal in a different public namespace than the original definition of writeExternal. This has the benefit that the ActionScript will compile and hit the bug without modification. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/38490.zip