CVE-2018-0495 : Detail

CVE-2018-0495

4.7
/
Medium
0.1%V3
Local
2018-06-13
21h00 +00:00
2019-08-06
14h06 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

Libgcrypt before 1.7.10 and 1.8.x before 1.8.3 allows a memory-cache side-channel attack on ECDSA signatures that can be mitigated through the use of blinding during the signing process in the _gcry_ecc_ecdsa_sign function in cipher/ecc-ecdsa.c, aka the Return Of the Hidden Number Problem or ROHNP. To discover an ECDSA key, the attacker needs access to either the local machine or a different virtual machine on the same physical host.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-203 Observable Discrepancy
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor, which exposes security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.0 4.7 MEDIUM CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/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

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.

High

A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected.

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.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same authority. In this case the vulnerable component and the impacted component are the same.

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.

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 that one has in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

[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.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Gnupg>>Libgcrypt >> Version To (excluding) 1.7.10

Gnupg>>Libgcrypt >> Version From (including) 1.8.0 To (excluding) 1.8.3

Configuraton 0

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 12.04

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 14.04

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 16.04

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 17.10

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 18.04

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 18.10

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 8.0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 9.0

Configuraton 0

Redhat>>Ansible_tower >> Version 3.3

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_desktop >> Version 7.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server >> Version 7.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_workstation >> Version 7.0

Configuraton 0

Oracle>>Traffic_director >> Version 11.1.1.9.0

References

http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041144
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
https://usn.ubuntu.com/3850-1/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041147
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
https://usn.ubuntu.com/3689-1/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
https://usn.ubuntu.com/3689-2/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
https://usn.ubuntu.com/3692-2/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
https://www.debian.org/security/2018/dsa-4231
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_DEBIAN
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3505
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://usn.ubuntu.com/3850-2/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
https://usn.ubuntu.com/3692-1/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3221
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://dev.gnupg.org/T4011
Tags : x_refsource_MISC
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1297
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1296
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1543
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2237
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT