CVE-2019-1244 : Detail

CVE-2019-1244

6.5
/
Medium
A01-Broken Access Control
4.91%V3
Network
2019-09-11
19h24 +00:00
2019-09-11
19h24 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

An information disclosure vulnerability exists when DirectWrite improperly discloses the contents of its memory, aka 'DirectWrite Information Disclosure Vulnerability'. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2019-1245, CVE-2019-1251.

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 6.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

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.

None

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

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 4.3 AV:N/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 : 47382

Publication date : 2019-09-11 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

Microsoft DirectWrite is a modern Windows API for high-quality text rendering. A majority of its code resides in the DWrite.dll user-mode library. It is used by a variety of widely used desktop programs (such as web browsers) and constitutes an attack surface for memory corruption bugs, as it performs the processing of untrusted font files and is written in C/C++. Through fuzzing, we have discovered a crash caused by an invalid memory read in DWrite!sfac_GetSbitBitmap, while rasterizing the glyphs of a slightly malformed TrueType font. The problem reproduces in Microsoft Edge (supposedly not in Chrome and Firefox due to OpenType Sanitizer); below is a crash log from the Microsoft Edge renderer process, generated when trying to open a web page with the proof-of-concept font embedded: --- cut --- (4368.698c): Access violation - code c0000005 (first chance) First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling. This exception may be expected and handled. DWrite!sfac_GetSbitBitmap+0x2ad: 00007ffe`b1ce47bd 410fb65500 movzx edx,byte ptr [r13] ds:000001b9`94823000=?? 0:036> u DWrite!sfac_GetSbitBitmap+0x2ad: 00007ffe`b1ce47bd 410fb65500 movzx edx,byte ptr [r13] 00007ffe`b1ce47c2 0811 or byte ptr [rcx],dl 00007ffe`b1ce47c4 49ffc5 inc r13 00007ffe`b1ce47c7 48ffc1 inc rcx 00007ffe`b1ce47ca 66413bc3 cmp ax,r11w 00007ffe`b1ce47ce 7471 je DWrite!sfac_GetSbitBitmap+0x331 (00007ffe`b1ce4841) 00007ffe`b1ce47d0 66ffc0 inc ax 00007ffe`b1ce47d3 ebd1 jmp DWrite!sfac_GetSbitBitmap+0x296 (00007ffe`b1ce47a6) 0:036> k # Child-SP RetAddr Call Site 00 000000a3`a00ec740 00007ffe`b1ce3aaa DWrite!sfac_GetSbitBitmap+0x2ad 01 000000a3`a00ec840 00007ffe`b1ce3954 DWrite!GetSbitComponent+0xfe 02 000000a3`a00ec950 00007ffe`b1d4cc66 DWrite!sbit_GetBitmap+0xd0 03 000000a3`a00eca10 00007ffe`b1d43dfe DWrite!fs_ContourScan+0x3b6 04 000000a3`a00ecaf0 00007ffe`b1d43e98 DWrite!TrueTypeRasterizer::Implementation::GetBitmapInternal+0xe6 05 000000a3`a00ecb40 00007ffe`b1d42c03 DWrite!TrueTypeRasterizer::Implementation::GetBitmap+0x30 06 000000a3`a00ecbb0 00007ffe`b1d11754 DWrite!GlyphBitmapRasterizationState::RasterizeGlyph+0x8b 07 000000a3`a00ecbf0 00007ffe`bf4de1ce DWrite!DWriteGlyphLookupCache::GetGlyphBitmapInfo+0x264 08 000000a3`a00ece60 00007ffe`bf4de95f d2d1!GlyphRunAnalyzer::AddCachedGlyph+0x62 09 000000a3`a00ecf10 00007ffe`bf4e60b0 d2d1!GlyphRunAnalyzer::GetGlyphs+0x18f 0a 000000a3`a00ecf60 00007ffe`bf4f572d d2d1!GlyphRunRenderer::InitForRendering+0x2c0 0b 000000a3`a00ed0a0 00007ffe`bf55ffe4 d2d1!CHwSurfaceRenderTarget::DrawGlyphRun+0x38d 0c 000000a3`a00ed3b0 00007ffe`bf4f379e d2d1!BrushRedirectionCompatibleCommand<CCommand_DrawGlyphRun,0>::Execute+0x134 0d 000000a3`a00ed4c0 00007ffe`bf50e7ef d2d1!CHwSurfaceRenderTarget::ProcessBatch+0x3ce 0e 000000a3`a00ed570 00007ffe`bf50a0ae d2d1!CBatchSerializer::FlushInternal+0x13f 0f 000000a3`a00ed600 00007ffe`bf50143b d2d1!DrawingContext::Flush+0x96 10 000000a3`a00ed660 00007ffe`99d3551e d2d1!D2DDeviceContextBase<ID2D1DeviceContext6,ID2D1DeviceContext6,null_type>::EndDraw+0x13b 11 000000a3`a00ed7a0 00007ffe`99bca704 edgehtml!CDXRenderTarget::EndDrawD2D+0x66 12 000000a3`a00ed7d0 00007ffe`99bca4e8 edgehtml!CDXRenderTarget::EnsureRenderMode+0x184 13 000000a3`a00ed800 00007ffe`99d2db85 edgehtml!CDXRenderTarget::EndDraw+0x38 14 000000a3`a00ed850 00007ffe`99d2da0b edgehtml!CDispSurface::EndLayerToRenderTarget+0x145 15 000000a3`a00ed8f0 00007ffe`99bb585f edgehtml!CDispNodeDestination::EndRender+0x6b 16 000000a3`a00ed960 00007ffe`99cf60c1 edgehtml!CDispNodeDestination::EndRect+0xaf 17 000000a3`a00ed9a0 00007ffe`99bacf83 edgehtml!CDispDestinationDrawHelper::EndRect+0x31 18 000000a3`a00ed9d0 00007ffe`99b6e055 edgehtml!CDispContainer::DrawSelfContent+0x583 19 000000a3`a00edb40 00007ffe`99b6f37e edgehtml!CDispContainer::DrawSelf+0x365 1a 000000a3`a00edcd0 00007ffe`99baee43 edgehtml!CDispNode::DrawInternal+0x7ce 1b 000000a3`a00ee060 00007ffe`99bad747 edgehtml!CDispNode::Draw+0x943 1c 000000a3`a00ee270 00007ffe`99bad297 edgehtml!CDispContainer::DrawChildren+0x227 1d 000000a3`a00ee330 00007ffe`99bacbc8 edgehtml!CDispContainer::DrawSelfContentFullStackingContext+0x127 1e 000000a3`a00ee420 00007ffe`99b6e055 edgehtml!CDispContainer::DrawSelfContent+0x1c8 1f 000000a3`a00ee590 00007ffe`99b6f37e edgehtml!CDispContainer::DrawSelf+0x365 20 000000a3`a00ee720 00007ffe`99baead3 edgehtml!CDispNode::DrawInternal+0x7ce 21 000000a3`a00eeab0 00007ffe`99bba8fc edgehtml!CDispNode::Draw+0x5d3 22 000000a3`a00eecc0 00007ffe`99bb9b68 edgehtml!CDispRoot::DrawIndependentCompositionLayerTree+0x5c 23 000000a3`a00eedb0 00007ffe`99bb97f5 edgehtml!CDispRoot::DrawRoot+0x1b8 24 000000a3`a00ef000 00007ffe`99c3452c edgehtml!CPaintHandler::RenderInternal+0x2b5 25 000000a3`a00ef580 00007ffe`99b54ac8 edgehtml!CPaintHandler::RenderIfNeeded+0x7c 26 000000a3`a00ef5f0 00007ffe`99d3a80d edgehtml!CRenderThread::ProcessRenderWork+0xdc 27 000000a3`a00ef650 00007ffe`99c5fdb9 edgehtml!CRenderTaskDrawInPlace::Execute+0xad 28 000000a3`a00ef6c0 00007ffe`99d77542 edgehtml!CRenderThread::RenderThread+0x229 29 000000a3`a00ef760 00007ffe`c32937e4 edgehtml!CRenderThread::StaticRenderThreadProc+0x42 2a 000000a3`a00ef790 00007ffe`c5e1cb81 KERNEL32!BaseThreadInitThunk+0x14 2b 000000a3`a00ef7c0 00000000`00000000 ntdll!RtlUserThreadStart+0x21 --- cut --- We have minimized the test cases to a 1-byte difference in the EBLC table, and a 2-byte difference in the EBDT table in relation to the original files. The issue reproduces on a fully updated Windows 10 1709; we haven't tested other versions of the system. It could be used to disclose sensitive data from the process address space, which is clearly visible when opening the PoC HTML files in Edge. In most cases, instead of crashing, the browser will display random chunks of heap memory residing after the glyph's bitmap allocation. As shown in 1/poc.html and 2/poc.html, the problems are related to glyphs corresponding to characters with codes 0xF0 and 0x2020, respectively. Attached is a pair of minimized PoC fonts, original fonts, and HTML files to reproduce the bug in a browser. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/47382.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1607

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1703

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1709

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1803

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1809

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1903

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 -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version 1803

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version 1903

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2019 >> Version -

References