English
Français
Light
Dark
System

Alert System

Stay informed at all times
Create an account Open a free account Login Manage your alerts

CVE-2016-3376 : Detail

CVE-2016-3376

7.8
/
HIGH
Improper Privilege Management
A04-Insecure Design
0.23%V3
Local
2016-10-13 23:00 +00:00
2018-10-12 17:57 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD

Alert for a CVE

Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Alert management

Descriptions

The kernel-mode drivers in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607 allow local users to gain privileges via a crafted application, aka "Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability." a different vulnerability than CVE-2016-3266, CVE-2016-7185, and CVE-2016-7211.

Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

Metrics

Metric 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

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.

 nvd@nist.gov
V2 9.3 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C nvd@nist.gov

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 : 40601

Publication date : 2016-10-19 22:00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=876 We have encountered a Windows kernel crash in the nt!RtlValidRelativeSecurityDescriptor function invoked by nt!CmpValidateHiveSecurityDescriptors while loading corrupted registry hive files. An example of a crash log excerpt generated after triggering the bug is shown below: --- KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED_M (1000008e) This is a very common bugcheck. Usually the exception address pinpoints the driver/function that caused the problem. Always note this address as well as the link date of the driver/image that contains this address. Some common problems are exception code 0x80000003. This means a hard coded breakpoint or assertion was hit, but this system was booted /NODEBUG. This is not supposed to happen as developers should never have hardcoded breakpoints in retail code, but ... If this happens, make sure a debugger gets connected, and the system is booted /DEBUG. This will let us see why this breakpoint is happening. Arguments: Arg1: c0000005, The exception code that was not handled Arg2: 81815974, The address that the exception occurred at Arg3: 80795644, Trap Frame Arg4: 00000000 Debugging Details: ------------------ [...] STACK_TEXT: 807956c4 81814994 a4f3f098 0125ffff 00000000 nt!RtlValidRelativeSecurityDescriptor+0x5b 807956fc 818146ad 03010001 80795728 80795718 nt!CmpValidateHiveSecurityDescriptors+0x24b 8079573c 8181708f 03010001 80000560 80000540 nt!CmCheckRegistry+0xd8 80795798 817eafa0 80795828 00000002 00000000 nt!CmpInitializeHive+0x55c 8079585c 817ebd85 80795bb8 00000000 807959f4 nt!CmpInitHiveFromFile+0x1be 807959c0 817f3aae 80795bb8 80795a88 80795a0c nt!CmpCmdHiveOpen+0x50 80795acc 817ec3b8 80795b90 80795bb8 00000010 nt!CmLoadKey+0x459 80795c0c 81682dc6 002afc90 00000000 00000010 nt!NtLoadKeyEx+0x56c 80795c0c 77066bf4 002afc90 00000000 00000010 nt!KiSystemServicePostCall WARNING: Frame IP not in any known module. Following frames may be wrong. 002afcf8 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0x77066bf4 [...] FOLLOWUP_IP: nt!RtlValidRelativeSecurityDescriptor+5b 81815974 803801 cmp byte ptr [eax],1 --- The bug seems to be caused by insufficient verification of the security descriptor length passed to the nt!RtlValidRelativeSecurityDescriptor function. An inadequately large length can render the verification of any further offsets useless, which is what happens in this particular instance. Even though the nt!RtlpValidateSDOffsetAndSize function is called to sanitize each offset in the descriptor used to access memory, it returns success due to operating on falsely large size. This condition can be leveraged to get the kernel to dereference any address relative to the pool allocation, which may lead to system crash or disclosure of kernel-mode memory. We have not investigated if the bug may allow out-of-bounds memory write access, but if that is the case, its severity would be further elevated. The issue reproduces on Windows 7 and 8.1. In order to reproduce the problem with the provided sample, it is necessary to load it with a dedicated program which calls the RegLoadAppKey() API. Attached is a proof of concept hive file. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/40601.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1511

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1607

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1703

Microsoft>>Windows_7 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_8.1 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_rt_8.1 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_vista >> Version -

References

http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1036996
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93388
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID

More information
Click on the button to the left (OFF), to authorize the inscription of cookie improving the functionalities of the site. Click on the button to the left (Accept all), to unauthorize the inscription of cookie improving the functionalities of the site.