CVE-2016-0063 : Detail

CVE-2016-0063

8.8
/
High
Overflow
40.42%V3
Network
2016-02-10
10h00 +00:00
2018-10-12
17h57 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 through 11 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted web site, aka "Internet Explorer Memory Corruption Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2016-0060, CVE-2016-0061, CVE-2016-0067, and CVE-2016-0072.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-119 Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.0 8.8 HIGH CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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.

Network

A vulnerability exploitable with network access means the vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the attacker's path is through OSI layer 3 (the network layer). Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable one or more network hops away (e.g. across layer 3 boundaries from routers).

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 against 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 to carry out an attack.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a 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

An important property captured by CVSS v3.0 is the ability for a vulnerability in one software component to impact resources beyond its means, or privileges.

Scope

Formally, Scope refers to the collection of privileges defined by a computing authority (e.g. an application, an operating system, or a sandbox environment) when granting access to computing resources (e.g. files, CPU, memory, etc). These privileges are assigned based on some method of identification and authorization. In some cases, the authorization may be simple or loosely controlled based upon predefined rules or standards. For example, in the case of Ethernet traffic sent to a network switch, the switch accepts traffic that arrives on its ports and is an authority that controls the traffic flow to other switch ports.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same authority. In this case the vulnerable component and the impacted component are the same.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics refer to the properties of the impacted component.

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 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 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 that one has in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

 [email protected]
V2 9.3 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C [email protected]

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 : 40845

Publication date : 2016-11-27 23h00 +00:00
Author : Skylined
EDB Verified : Yes

Source: http://blog.skylined.nl/20161128001.html Synopsis A specially crafted web-page can cause a type confusion vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 through to 11. An attacker can cause code to be executed with a stack layout it does not expect, or have code attempt to execute a method of an object using a vftable, when that object does not have a vftable. Successful exploitation can lead to arbitrary code execution. Known affected software and attack vectors Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, 9, 10 and 11 An attacker would need to get a target user to open a specially crafted web-page. Disabling Javascript should prevent an attacker from triggering the vulnerable code path. 1 Repro.svg: <script xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> window.exploit = function(w) { o={x:w.DOMImplementation(0).prototype.has­Feature}; o.x(); }; open("1 Target.html"); </script> 1 Target.html: <script> opener.exploit(window); </script> Description In an SVG page, a copy of the has­Feature method of a DOMImplementation object from a HTML page is created. This copy is used as a method of a new object and called with one argument. This can cause at least two issues in the MSHTML!Method_­VARIANTBOOLp_­BSTR_­o0o­VARIANT function of MSIE: A Failfast exception when the code detects that calling a method of an object has not cleaned up the stack as expected; this is because the called function appears to expect a different number of arguments or a different calling convention. This issue can be triggered by changing the line o.x(); in the repro to o.x(new Array). An out-of-bounds write when MSHTML!CBase::Private­Get­Disp­ID is called; this is probably caused by a type confusion bug: the code expects a VARIANT object of one type, but is working on an object of a different type. The repro was tested on x86 systems and does not reproduce this issue on x64 systems. I did not determine if this is because x64 systems are not affected, or because the repro needs to be modified to work on x64 systems. Exploit Exploitation was not attempted. I reversed Method_­VARIANTBOOLp_­BSTR_­o0o­VARIANT only sufficiently to get an idea of the root cause, but not enough to determine exactly what is going on or how to control the issue for command execution. 2 Repro.html: <body onload=open("2 Target.html")> 2 Target.html: <meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=11><body onload=x=opener.DOMImplementation(0).prototype.is­Prototype­Of;x()> Description Calling the is­Prototype­Of method of the DOMImplementation interface as a function results in type confusion where an object is assumed to implement IUnknown when in fact it does not. The code attempts to call the Release method of IUnknown through the vftable at offset 0, but since the object has no vftables, a member property is stored at this offset, which appears to have a static value 002dc6c0. An attacker that is able to control this value, or allocate memory and store data at that address, may be able to execute arbitrary code. Exploit No attempts were made to further reverse the code and determine the exact root cause. A few attempts were made to control the value at offset 0 of the object in question, as well as get another object in its place with a different value at this location, but both efforts were brief and unsuccessful. Time-line September 2015: This vulnerability was found through fuzzing. October 2015: This vulnerability was submitted to ZDI. November 2015: This vulnerability was acquired by ZDI. February 2016: This issue was addressed by Microsoft in MS16-009. November 2016: Details of this issue are released.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Internet_explorer >> Version 9

Microsoft>>Internet_explorer >> Version 10

Microsoft>>Internet_explorer >> Version 11

References

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/40845/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1034971
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK