CVE-2017-0282 : Detail

CVE-2017-0282

5
/
Medium
A01-Broken Access Control
11.51%V3
Local
2017-06-14
23h00 +00:00
2017-08-11
13h57 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

Uniscribe in Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, 1703, Windows Server 2016, Microsoft Office 2007 SP3, and Microsoft Office 2010 SP2 allows improper disclosure of memory contents, aka "Windows Uniscribe Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-0284, CVE-2017-0285, and CVE-2017-8534.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

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.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

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.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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 1.9 AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N 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 : 42237

Publication date : 2017-06-22 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1201 We have encountered a crash in the Windows Uniscribe user-mode library, in the USP10!CreateIndexTable function, while trying to display text using a corrupted TTF font file: --- (5cc.74): Access violation - code c0000005 (first chance) First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling. This exception may be expected and handled. eax=00000000 ebx=00000000 ecx=00000000 edx=00000000 esi=00000025 edi=0365428f eip=774cc410 esp=002cef70 ebp=002cf084 iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz na po nc cs=001b ss=0023 ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003b gs=0000 efl=00010202 USP10!CreateIndexTable+0x40: 774cc410 0fb64c4701 movzx ecx,byte ptr [edi+eax*2+1] ds:0023:03654290=?? 0:000> kb # ChildEBP RetAddr Args to Child 00 002cf084 774cc35e 036437d0 03653f68 03651ff4 USP10!CreateIndexTable+0x40 01 002cf098 774c746e 036437d0 03643fd0 036439d0 USP10!CreateIsStartOfRuleTable+0x2e 02 002cf0fc 774c7124 0000001a 035e3d88 035effa8 USP10!LoadTTOArabicShapeTables+0x29e 03 002cf110 774cc734 6c010413 035e3d88 035d6124 USP10!LoadArabicShapeTables+0xd4 04 002cf12c 774ba5a0 6c010413 036437d0 0000001a USP10!ArabicLoadTbl+0xd4 05 002cf154 774ba692 035d6124 6c010413 0000001a USP10!UpdateCache+0xb0 06 002cf168 774c15fd 6c010413 035d6000 774c16ab USP10!ScriptCheckCache+0x62 07 002cf174 774c16ab 00000001 00000001 00000000 USP10!GetShapeFunction+0xd 08 002cf1ac 774c2bd4 00000001 00000002 002cf22c USP10!RenderItemNoFallback+0x5b 09 002cf1d8 774c2e62 00000001 00000002 002cf22c USP10!RenderItemWithFallback+0x104 0a 002cf1fc 774c43f9 00000002 002cf22c 035d6124 USP10!RenderItem+0x22 0b 002cf240 774b7a04 000004a0 00000400 6c010413 USP10!ScriptStringAnalyzeGlyphs+0x1e9 0c 002cf258 760a1736 6c010413 035d6040 0000000a USP10!ScriptStringAnalyse+0x284 0d 002cf2a4 760a18c1 6c010413 002cf728 0000000a LPK!LpkStringAnalyse+0xe5 0e 002cf3a0 760a17b4 6c010413 00000000 00000000 LPK!LpkCharsetDraw+0x332 0f 002cf3d4 77df56a9 6c010413 00000000 00000000 LPK!LpkDrawTextEx+0x40 10 002cf414 77df5a64 6c010413 00000070 00000000 USER32!DT_DrawStr+0x13c 11 002cf460 77df580f 6c010413 002cf728 002cf73c USER32!DT_GetLineBreak+0x78 12 002cf50c 77df5882 6c010413 00000000 0000000a USER32!DrawTextExWorker+0x250 13 002cf530 77df5b68 6c010413 002cf728 ffffffff USER32!DrawTextExW+0x1e [...] --- The issue reproduces on Windows 7, and could be potentially used to disclose sensitive data from the process heap. It is easiest to reproduce with PageHeap enabled, but it is also possible to observe a crash in a default system configuration. In order to reproduce the problem with the provided samples, it might be necessary to use a custom program which displays all of the font's glyphs at various point sizes. Attached is a proof of concept malformed font file which triggers the crash. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/42237.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Office >> Version 2007

Microsoft>>Office >> Version 2010

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_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version -

References

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98885
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42237/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB