CVE-2018-8208 : Detail

CVE-2018-8208

7
/
High
44.15%V3
Local
2018-06-14
10h00 +00:00
2018-06-22
07h57 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists in Windows when Desktop Bridge does not properly manage the virtual registry, aka "Windows Desktop Bridge Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability." This affects Windows Server 2016, Windows 10, Windows 10 Servers. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2018-8214.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.0 7 HIGH CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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.

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.

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 6.9 AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C 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.

Exploit information

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 44914

Publication date : 2018-06-19 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

Windows: Desktop Bridge Activation Arbitrary Directory Creation EoP Platform: Windows 10 1703, 1709 (not tested RS4) Class: Elevation of Privilege Summary: The activator for Desktop Bridge applications calls CreateAppContainerToken while running as a privileged account leading to creation of arbitrary object directories leading to EoP. Description: As much of the activation of Desktop Bridge applications require TCB privilege (such as creating the container) it’s delegated to the AppInfo service which runs as Local System. During post activation, either through RAiLaunchProcessWithIdentity or RAiFinishPackageActivation the API PostCreateProcessDesktopAppXActivation is called in daxexec which sets up various things. One of those things is registering the process with the Process State Manager service and to do that it passes an AppContainer token for the AppX package. To create the token the service will call the API CreateAppContainerToken, however it doesn’t impersonate the user while doing this which results in the service setting up the AppContainer object directories as the process user. By placing symbolic links into these locations arbitrary object directories can be created, as long as the parent directory can be written by Local System. The created directories are also given an explicit DACL which grants the user access so that they can also be written to by the original user once created. On Windows 8.1 this would be trivial to exploit as NtCreateLowBoxToken didn’t care what handles you passed it for capture, however since CVE-2015-2554 (which I reported) the system call checks that the directories are under the AppContainerNamedObjects directory for the user. They’re still created but once NtCreateLowBoxToken is called they’ll be closed again. However due to the way kernel objects persist it just becomes a race condition, as long as you open the directory you want before all handles are closed then you can keep it alive to do what you need to do with it. In practice it seems to be possible to capture the directory reliably but perhaps only on multi core systems. IMO this might be best to fix in CreateAppContainerToken, perhaps by impersonating the base token which is being used to create the lowbox one. I’ve tried to track down cases before where this function is called inappropriately and it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s more bad callers for this function as impersonation can be tricky to get right, especially when hidden behind RAI C++ classes. As an aside it’s also worth noting that this type of bug is of more general application to the session 0 AppContainerNamedObjects directory. That directory granted access to the Everyone group to write to it as shown below. PS C:\> $d = Get-NtDirectory \Sessions\0\AppContainerNamedObjects PS C:\> $d.SecurityDescriptor.Dacl Type User Flags Mask ---- ---- ----- ---- Allowed Everyone None 0002000F Allowed NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM None 000F000F Allowed NT AUTHORITY\RESTRICTED None 00000002 Allowed APPLICATION PACKAGE AUTHORI... None 00000003 Allowed APPLICATION PACKAGE AUTHORI... None 00000003 Allowed NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM ObjectInherit, Co... 10000000 Previously nothing used it in Session 0 but in a recent update the UMFD process spawns in Session 0 as an AC and so the directories would be created by a system process which could be redirected. I’m not sure that’s very useful but it’s something which you might also want to fix. Proof of Concept: I’ve provided a PoC as a C# project. As it’s a race condition it should be run on a multi-core machine to give the threads a chance to capture the directory object. It might work on a single core as well but I’ve not tested it. If it fails to get the directory try it again as it’s possible that the race wasn’t successfully won. It uses the My Office application as with previous exploits, if it’s not installed then the PoC will fail. However it doesn’t need a specific Desktop Bridge application just any installed will do though you’d have to modify the package information in the PoC to do so. The PoC will try and create the folder \Blah in the object manager namespace. 1) Compile the C# project. It will need to grab the NtApiDotNet from NuGet to work. 2) Run the PoC, if the PoC says that OfficeHub is already running ensure it’s closed. 3) If a dialog appears saying the application has failed to start click OK. 4) The poc should print whether it captured the directory and if so what access was granted. Expected Result: Create of the application should fail and the directories are not created. Observed Result: The directories are created, the application will still fail. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/44914.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1607

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1703

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1709

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1803

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version 1709

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version 1803

References

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44914/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041093
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/104392
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID