CVE-2017-10204 : Detail

CVE-2017-10204

8.8
/
High
0.35%V4
Local
2017-08-08
13h00 +00:00
2024-10-04
17h09 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

Vulnerability in the Oracle VM VirtualBox component of Oracle Virtualization (subcomponent: Core). The supported version that is affected is Prior to 5.1.24. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle VM VirtualBox executes to compromise Oracle VM VirtualBox. While the vulnerability is in Oracle VM VirtualBox, attacks may significantly impact additional products. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle VM VirtualBox. CVSS 3.0 Base Score 8.8 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

Metrics

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

A vulnerability exploitable with Local access means that the vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack, and the attacker's path is via read/write/execute capabilities. In some cases, the attacker may be logged in locally in order to exploit the vulnerability, otherwise, she may rely on User Interaction to execute a malicious file.

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.

Low

The attacker is authorized with (i.e. 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 may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

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.

Changed

An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the authorization privileges intended by the vulnerable component. In this case the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different.

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

 nvd@nist.gov
V2 4.6 AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P 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 : 42425

Publication date : 2017-08-02 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1257 VirtualBox: Windows Process DLL Signature Bypass EoP Platform: VirtualBox v5.1.22 r115126 x64 (Tested on Windows 10) Class: Elevation of Privilege Summary: The process hardening implemented by the VirtualBox driver can be circumvented to load arbitrary code inside a VirtualBox process giving access to the VBoxDrv driver which can allow routes to EoP from a normal user. Description: NOTE: I don’t know if you consider this an issue or not, however you fixed the last bypass I sent so it’s possible you still consider it a security boundary. The ring 3 process hardening in VirtualBox adds three hooks to module loading to try and prevent untrusted code being loaded into the process, LdrLoadDll, NtCreateSection and a LDR DLL notification. Each will try and verify a DLL load and either reject the load with an error or kill the process is it’s not possible to prevent it from occurring. Looking at the hooks there a couple of issues which when combined together allow a user to inject an arbitrary DLL into a protected process. The location checks are not very rigorous. As far as I can tell arbitrary files need to be owned by an admin/trustedinstaller but this check is waived if the file is in system32/WinSxS. However this doesn’t take into account that there are some directories which can be written to inside system32 such as Tasks. The code to enforce specific certificates doesn’t seem to be enabled so at the very least combined with 1, you can load any validly signed file. It might be considered that 2 isn’t an issue as getting a signing cert could be a sufficient burden for a “malicious” attacker, so instead it’s worth considering what else the weak path checking allows you to do. The handling of DLL paths has some interesting behaviours, most interestingly there’s the behaviour where if no file extension is added to the path then the loader will automatically append .DLL to it. This is actually implemented inside LdrLoadDll, this leads to our third problem: 3. If the path passed to LdrLoadDll doesn’t have an extension then the protection code will signature check the extension less file but the loader will load the file with a .DLL extension. E.g. if trying to load \path\abc then \path\abc is signature checked but \path\abc.dll is loaded. When combined with the ability to bypass the owner check we can drop an arbitrary valid signed file alongside our untrusted DLL and exploit this TOCTOU to load an arbitrary unsigned DLL. The following will show inside the VboxHardening.log when loading the file testdll. 2064.492c: \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\testdll: Owner is not trusted installer 2064.492c: \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\testdll: Relaxing the TrustedInstaller requirement for this DLL (it's in system32). 2064.492c: supHardenedWinVerifyImageByHandle: -> 0 (\Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\testdll) WinVerifyTrust 2064.492c: supR3HardenedWinVerifyCacheInsert: \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\testdll 2064.492c: supR3HardenedMonitor_LdrLoadDll: pName=c:\windows\system32\tasks\dummy\testdll (rcNtResolve=0xc0150008) *pfFlags=0x0 pwszSearchPath=0000000000002009:<flags> [calling] This shows that it successfully passed the signature check inside the LdrLoadDll hook, however one of the other hooks should try and recheck the real testdll.dll file when it gets loaded instead. As the name of this file won’t match the cached signature check it should still fail to complete loading. This is where the fourth issue comes in: 4. When doing the check inside supHardenedWinVerifyImageByHandle with WinVerifyTrust disabled (i.e. when in the DLL load notification hook) and the target file has no signature information an incorrect error code is returned which looks like success leading to the DLL being allowed to load and execute. Specifically when supR3HardenedDllNotificationCallback is called it passes true to the fAvoidWinVerifyTrust parameter of supR3HardenedScreenImage. This first uses the RT code to check if the file is signed or not, if we use an unsigned file then this will return the error VERR_LDRVI_NOT_SIGNED (-22900). Later in supHardenedWinVerifyImageByLdrMod this error is checked and the function supHardNtViCheckIfNotSignedOk is called. This seems to result in the error coding changing from an error to VINF_LDRVI_NOT_SIGNED (22900) which is actually a success code. Normally this would be overridden again by the call to WinVerifyTrust but because that’s disabled the final result of this process is the DLL notification callback thinks the signature check was successful even though it wasn’t. This results in the DLL being allowed to complete loading. For example the following is a snippet of the output when the bypass occurs. 2064.492c: \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\TestDll.dll: Owner is not trusted installer 2064.492c: \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\TestDll.dll: Relaxing the TrustedInstaller requirement for this DLL (it's in system32). 2064.492c: supR3HardenedWinVerifyCacheScheduleImports: Import todo: #1 'user32.dll'. 2064.492c: supR3HardenedWinVerifyCacheScheduleImports: Import todo: #2 'advapi32.dll'. 2064.492c: supHardenedWinVerifyImageByHandle: -> 22900 (\Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\TestDll.dll) 2064.492c: supR3HardenedWinVerifyCacheInsert: \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\TestDll.dll 2064.492c: supR3HardenedDllNotificationCallback: load 00007ff8a8600000 LB 0x00027000 c:\windows\system32\tasks\dummy\testdll.DLL [fFlags=0x0] 2064.492c: supR3HardenedScreenImage/LdrLoadDll: cache hit (Unknown Status 22900 (0x5974)) on \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\TestDll.dll [avoiding WinVerifyTrust] 2064.492c: Detected loader lock ownership: rc=Unknown Status 22900 (0x5974) '\Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\TestDll.dll'. 2064.492c: supR3HardenedWinVerifyCacheProcessWvtTodos: 22900 (was 22900) fWinVerifyTrust=0 for '\Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\Tasks\dummy\TestDll.dll' [rescheduled] This combination of issues results in being able to inject arbitrary executable code into a VirtualBox protected process and access the resources such as the kernel driver that this would provide. Proof of Concept: I’ve provided a PoC DLL which will be loaded through abusing the VBox COM Client loading process in source form. I’ve also provided a registry file which will need to be imported. Prerequisites: The DLL must be compiled in release mode for the architecture you’re going to run VirtualBox on. Then follow these steps: 1) Create the directory c:\windows\system32\tasks\dummy on the command line using ‘mkdir c:\windows\system32\tasks\dummy’ 2) Import the provided .reg file to setup the COM hijack using the command line ‘reg import keys.reg’ 3) Copy a valid signed file (such as VirtualBox.exe) to the file c:\windows\system32\tasks\dummy\testdll. 4) Copy the compiled PoC dll to c:\windows\system32\tasks\dummy\testdll.dll. 5) Start a VM. Each process the DLL is injected into will show a message box. This will include the protected VirtualBox.exe process. Expected Result: Untrusted DLL loading should fail inside a protected process. Observed Result: DLL is loaded into the protected process. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/42425.zip
Exploit Database EDB-ID : 46747

Publication date : 2019-04-23 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

VirtualBox: COM RPC Interface Code Injection Host EoP Platform: VirtualBox 6.0.4 r128413 x64 on Windows 10 1809 Class: Elevation of Privilege Summary: The hardened VirtualBox process on a Windows host doesn’t secure its COM interface leading to arbitrary code injection and EoP. Description: This issue is similar in scope to others I’ve reported such as S0867394/CVE-2017-10204. It allows you to call arbitrary code inside the hardened process which can expose the kernel drivers to normal user processes resulting in EoP. I’m assuming that this is still an issue you’d like to fix? The VirtualBox hardening code allows other processes running as the same user to read all virtual memory by granting the PROCESS_VM_READ access right. It isn’t obvious that this could result in arbitrary code execution, except that VirtualBox initializes out-of-process COM and by extension exposes an RPC interface. With access to read arbitrary memory from such a process it’s possible to call existing interfaces running inside the VirtualBox process such as the undocumented IRundown interface which COM uses for various infrastructure tasks. This interface has a DoCallback method which will execute an arbitrary function in the process with a single arbitrary pointer sized argument. You can get more details from my blog about using this technique as a mechanism to bypass Windows Protected Processes, https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/11/injecting-code-into-windows-protected.html. In this case we don’t need to abuse an old version of WERFault to dump memory as the hardening driver allows us to do just read memory. To fix this issue you might want to block PROCESS_VM_READ access entirely, it’s not clear if this is a necessary access right for something or just because it didn’t seem to be dangerous. I’d also call CoInitializeSecurity at process start and pass an security descriptor to the pSecDesc parameter which limits access to administrators and perhaps service accounts. However be careful if you decide to only initialize CoInitializeSecurity as it’s process wide and has weird behaviors which might result in the security descriptor getting unset. I’d probably call the API every time you call CoInitialize just in case. Proof of Concept: I’ve provided a PoC as a C# project. It will use the vulnerability to call ExitProcess with the exit code ‘12345678’ inside a VirtualBox process. Note that by default it’s designed to work out of the box on Windows 10 1809 x64 updated to March 2019. It will fallback to trying to lookup symbol addresses using the DBGHELP library if the combase DLL doesn’t match, however you’ll need to have cached the symbols for combase inside C:\ProgramData\dbg\sym. You can do this by running the ‘symchk’ tool from a Debugging Tools for Windows installation and passing the path to the x64 version of combase. 1) Compile the C# project using Visual Studio 2017. It’ll need to pull NtApiDotNet from NuGet to build. 2) Start a virtual machine and note the PID of the hardened VirtualBox process. 3) As a normal user run the PoC passing the PID of the hardened VirtualBox process. Expected Result: The PoC fails to call code inside the target process. Observed Result: The PoC executes ExitProcess inside the hardened process and verifies the return code once the process exits. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/46747.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Oracle>>Vm_virtualbox >> Version To (including) 5.1.22

References

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42425/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038929
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/99631
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.