CVE-2017-0286 : Detail

CVE-2017-0286

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

Graphics 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, and Windows Server 2016 allows improper disclosure of memory contents, aka "Windows Graphics Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-0287, CVE-2017-0288, CVE-2017-0289, CVE-2017-8531, CVE-2017-8532, and CVE-2017-8533.

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.

 [email protected]
V2 1.9 AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N [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 : 42238

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=1202 We have encountered a crash in the Windows Uniscribe user-mode library, in the USP10!NextCharInLiga function, while trying to display text using a corrupted TTF font file: --- (3d4.454): Access violation - code c0000005 (first chance) First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling. This exception may be expected and handled. eax=000032c3 ebx=002cedbc ecx=00000002 edx=0372c060 esi=00000006 edi=00006586 eip=77505a5e esp=002ce974 ebp=002ce980 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!NextCharInLiga+0x1e: 77505a5e 0fb73c17 movzx edi,word ptr [edi+edx] ds:0023:037325e6=???? 0:000> kb # ChildEBP RetAddr Args to Child 00 002ce980 774ffbe3 002cedbc 000032c3 00000008 USP10!NextCharInLiga+0x1e 01 002ce99c 77506148 002cedbc 002cedb0 00000006 USP10!CharToComponent+0x43 02 002ce9c8 775062bb 002cedbc 002cedb0 00000009 USP10!findBaseLigature+0xa8 03 002cea0c 77501733 002cedbc 0374cd30 002cecbc USP10!otlMkLigaPosLookup::apply+0x9b 04 002cea78 775039f1 00000000 002cedbc 002cedb0 USP10!ApplyLookup+0x4b3 05 002cec7c 774ff1d1 534f5047 002cedf4 002cedbc USP10!ApplyFeatures+0x481 06 002cecc8 774fb28b 03758ffc 03758d68 002cedf4 USP10!RePositionOtlGlyphs+0x1c1 07 002cecfc 774f7df3 002ced94 002cede0 002cedf4 USP10!ShapingLibraryInternal::RePositionOtlGlyphsWithLanguageFallback+0x2b 08 002cef68 774e5bee 002cf0b8 002cf0c0 002cf0a4 USP10!GenericEngineGetGlyphPositions+0x8a3 09 002cf03c 774e2d8a 002cf0b8 002cf0c0 002cf0a4 USP10!ShapingGetGlyphPositions+0x40e 0a 002cf134 774b5e45 000105d3 03726124 0372c020 USP10!ShlPlace+0x20a 0b 002cf17c 774c193d 000105d3 03726124 037263dc USP10!ScriptPlace+0x165 0c 002cf1d8 774c2bd4 00000000 00000000 002cf258 USP10!RenderItemNoFallback+0x2ed 0d 002cf204 774c2e62 00000000 00000000 002cf258 USP10!RenderItemWithFallback+0x104 0e 002cf228 774c43f9 00000000 002cf258 03726124 USP10!RenderItem+0x22 0f 002cf26c 774b7a04 000004a0 00000400 000105d3 USP10!ScriptStringAnalyzeGlyphs+0x1e9 10 002cf284 760a1736 000105d3 03726040 0000000a USP10!ScriptStringAnalyse+0x284 11 002cf2d0 760a18c1 000105d3 002cf754 0000000a LPK!LpkStringAnalyse+0xe5 12 002cf3cc 760a17b4 000105d3 00000000 00000000 LPK!LpkCharsetDraw+0x332 13 002cf400 77df56a9 000105d3 00000000 00000000 LPK!LpkDrawTextEx+0x40 14 002cf440 77df5a64 000105d3 00000120 00000000 USER32!DT_DrawStr+0x13c 15 002cf48c 77df580f 000105d3 002cf754 002cf768 USER32!DT_GetLineBreak+0x78 16 002cf538 77df5882 000105d3 00000000 0000000a USER32!DrawTextExWorker+0x250 17 002cf55c 77df5b68 000105d3 002cf754 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 are 3 proof of concept malformed font files which trigger the crash. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/42238.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Office >> Version 2007

Microsoft>>Office >> Version 2010

Microsoft>>Windows_7 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

References

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98891
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42238/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB