CVE-2017-0288 : Detail

CVE-2017-0288

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-2017-0286, CVE-2017-0287, 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 : 42241

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=1205 We have encountered a crash in the Windows Uniscribe user-mode library, in the USP10!otlReverseChainingLookup::apply function, while trying to display text using a corrupted TTF font file: --- (678.6c8): Access violation - code c0000005 (first chance) First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling. This exception may be expected and handled. eax=0360c018 ebx=0000ffff ecx=035acffa edx=00000012 esi=0012efa8 edi=0000ffff eip=7750786b esp=0012e9fc ebp=0012ea38 iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz na pe nc cs=001b ss=0023 ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003b gs=0000 efl=00010206 USP10!otlReverseChainingLookup::apply+0xbb: 7750786b 0fb700 movzx eax,word ptr [eax] ds:0023:0360c018=???? 0:000> kb # ChildEBP RetAddr Args to Child 00 0012ea38 77501533 0012ef8c 0012efa8 0012eebc USP10!otlReverseChainingLookup::apply+0xbb 01 0012eaa0 77508c6f 00000000 0012ef8c 00000022 USP10!ApplyLookup+0x2b3 02 0012eb24 77508531 0012eb90 42555347 0012ef8c USP10!applyContextLookups+0x21f 03 0012ebf8 77501508 42555347 0012ef8c 015acc64 USP10!otlChainingLookup::apply+0x701 04 0012ec78 775039f1 00000000 0012ef8c 00000040 USP10!ApplyLookup+0x288 05 0012ee7c 774fefcf 42555347 0012efb8 0012ef8c USP10!ApplyFeatures+0x481 06 0012eec8 774fb203 00000000 035aeffa 035aef70 USP10!SubstituteOtlGlyphs+0x1bf 07 0012eef4 774f6edc 0012ef24 0012ef9c 0012efb8 USP10!ShapingLibraryInternal::SubstituteOtlGlyphsWithLanguageFallback+0x23 08 0012f160 774e55da 0012f26c 0012f298 0012f280 USP10!GenericEngineGetGlyphs+0xa1c 09 0012f220 774e273f 0012f26c 0012f298 0012f280 USP10!ShapingGetGlyphs+0x36a 0a 0012f308 774b5c6f a801011c 03586124 03586318 USP10!ShlShape+0x2ef 0b 0012f34c 774c174a a801011c 03586124 03586318 USP10!ScriptShape+0x15f 0c 0012f3ac 774c2bd4 00000000 00000000 0012f42c USP10!RenderItemNoFallback+0xfa 0d 0012f3d8 774c2e62 00000000 00000000 0012f42c USP10!RenderItemWithFallback+0x104 0e 0012f3fc 774c43f9 00000000 0012f42c 03586124 USP10!RenderItem+0x22 0f 0012f440 774b7a04 000004a0 00000400 a801011c USP10!ScriptStringAnalyzeGlyphs+0x1e9 10 0012f458 760a1736 a801011c 03586040 0000000a USP10!ScriptStringAnalyse+0x284 11 0012f4a4 760a18c1 a801011c 0012f928 0000000a LPK!LpkStringAnalyse+0xe5 12 0012f5a0 760a17b4 a801011c 00000000 00000000 LPK!LpkCharsetDraw+0x332 13 0012f5d4 77df56a9 a801011c 00000000 00000000 LPK!LpkDrawTextEx+0x40 14 0012f614 77df5a64 a801011c 00000000 00000000 USER32!DT_DrawStr+0x13c 15 0012f660 77df580f a801011c 0012f928 0012f93c USER32!DT_GetLineBreak+0x78 16 0012f70c 77df5882 a801011c 00000000 0000000a USER32!DrawTextExWorker+0x250 17 0012f730 77df5b68 a801011c 0012f928 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 2 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/42241.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_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version -

References

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42241/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98923
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID