CVE-2019-2698 : Detail

CVE-2019-2698

8.1
/
High
2.48%V3
Network
2019-04-23
16h16 +00:00
2024-10-02
15h57 +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 Java SE component of Oracle Java SE (subcomponent: 2D). Supported versions that are affected are Java SE: 7u211 and 8u202. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise Java SE. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Java SE. Note: This vulnerability applies to Java deployments, typically in clients running sandboxed Java Web Start applications or sandboxed Java applets (in Java SE 8), that load and run untrusted code (e.g., code that comes from the internet) and rely on the Java sandbox for security. This vulnerability does not apply to Java deployments, typically in servers, that load and run only trusted code (e.g., code installed by an administrator). CVSS 3.0 Base Score 8.1 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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
V3.1 8.1 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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.

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.

High

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 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.

None

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

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.

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 a 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 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 6.8 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P [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 : 46723

Publication date : 2019-04-16 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

A heap corruption was observed in Oracle Java Runtime Environment version 8u202 (latest at the time of this writing) while fuzz-testing the processing of TrueType fonts. It manifests itself in the form of the following (or similar) crash: --- cut --- $ bin/java -cp . DisplaySfntFont test.ttf Iteration (0,0) # # A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment: # # SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x00007f7285b39824, pid=234398, tid=0x00007f7286683700 # # JRE version: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (8.0_202-b08) (build 1.8.0_202-b08) # Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (25.202-b08 mixed mode linux-amd64 compressed oops) # Problematic frame: # C [libc.so.6+0x77824]# [ timer expired, abort... ] Aborted --- cut --- The crash reproduces on both Windows and Linux platforms. On Linux, it can be also triggered with the MALLOC_CHECK_=3 environment variable: --- cut --- $ MALLOC_CHECK_=3 bin/java -cp . DisplaySfntFont test.ttf Iteration (0,0) *** Error in `bin/java': free(): invalid pointer: 0x0000000002876320 *** ======= Backtrace: ========= /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x70bcb)[0x7f84185edbcb] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x76f96)[0x7f84185f3f96] jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so(+0x1d2b2)[0x7f83ddc672b2] jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so(+0x27ff4)[0x7f83ddc71ff4] jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so(+0x866f)[0x7f83ddc5266f] jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so(Java_sun_font_SunLayoutEngine_nativeLayout+0x230)[0x7f83ddc78990] [0x7f84076306c7] ======= Memory map: ======== 00400000-00401000 r-xp 00000000 fe:01 20840680 jre/8u202/bin/java 00600000-00601000 r--p 00000000 fe:01 20840680 jre/8u202/bin/java 00601000-00602000 rw-p 00001000 fe:01 20840680 jre/8u202/bin/java 023ba000-028d9000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap] 3d1a00000-3fba00000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 3fba00000-670900000 ---p 00000000 00:00 0 670900000-685900000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 685900000-7c0000000 ---p 00000000 00:00 0 7c0000000-7c00c0000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 7c00c0000-800000000 ---p 00000000 00:00 0 [...] --- cut --- ... under Valgrind: --- cut --- $ valgrind bin/java -cp . DisplaySfntFont test.ttf [...] ==245623== Invalid write of size 2 ==245623== at 0x40BF2750: GlyphIterator::setCurrGlyphID(unsigned short) (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40C0C089: SingleSubstitutionFormat1Subtable::process(LEReferenceTo<SingleSubstitutionFormat1Subtable> const&, GlyphIterator*, LEErrorCode&, LEGlyphFilter const*) const (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40C0C4A4: SingleSubstitutionSubtable::process(LEReferenceTo<SingleSubstitutionSubtable> const&, GlyphIterator*, LEErrorCode&, LEGlyphFilter const*) const (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40BF47E5: GlyphSubstitutionLookupProcessor::applySubtable(LEReferenceTo<LookupSubtable> const&, unsigned short, GlyphIterator*, LEFontInstance const*, LEErrorCode&) const [clone .part.11] (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40C01DCE: LookupProcessor::applyLookupTable(LEReferenceTo<LookupTable> const&, GlyphIterator*, LEFontInstance const*, LEErrorCode&) const (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40C02FBA: LookupProcessor::applySingleLookup(unsigned short, GlyphIterator*, LEFontInstance const*, LEErrorCode&) const (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40BEBC9C: ContextualSubstitutionBase::applySubstitutionLookups(LookupProcessor const*, LEReferenceToArrayOf<SubstitutionLookupRecord> const&, unsigned short, GlyphIterator*, LEFontInstance const*, int, LEErrorCode&) (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40BEE766: ChainingContextualSubstitutionFormat3Subtable::process(LETableReference const&, LookupProcessor const*, GlyphIterator*, LEFontInstance const*, LEErrorCode&) const (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40BEE8E3: ChainingContextualSubstitutionSubtable::process(LEReferenceTo<ChainingContextualSubstitutionSubtable> const&, LookupProcessor const*, GlyphIterator*, LEFontInstance const*, LEErrorCode&) const (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40BF475B: GlyphSubstitutionLookupProcessor::applySubtable(LEReferenceTo<LookupSubtable> const&, unsigned short, GlyphIterator*, LEFontInstance const*, LEErrorCode&) const [clone .part.11] (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40C01DCE: LookupProcessor::applyLookupTable(LEReferenceTo<LookupTable> const&, GlyphIterator*, LEFontInstance const*, LEErrorCode&) const (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40C02EAB: LookupProcessor::process(LEGlyphStorage&, GlyphPositionAdjustments*, char, LEReferenceTo<GlyphDefinitionTableHeader> const&, LEFontInstance const*, LEErrorCode&) const (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== Address 0x3f68a55c is 4 bytes before a block of size 104 alloc'd ==245623== at 0x4C2BBEF: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299) ==245623== by 0x40BFD4CF: LEGlyphStorage::allocateGlyphArray(int, char, LEErrorCode&) (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40BE875A: ArabicOpenTypeLayoutEngine::characterProcessing(unsigned short const*, int, int, int, char, unsigned short*&, LEGlyphStorage&, LEErrorCode&) (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40C0815F: OpenTypeLayoutEngine::computeGlyphs(unsigned short const*, int, int, int, char, LEGlyphStorage&, LEErrorCode&) (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40BFE55D: LayoutEngine::layoutChars(unsigned short const*, int, int, int, char, float, float, LEErrorCode&) (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) ==245623== by 0x40C0E91F: Java_sun_font_SunLayoutEngine_nativeLayout (in jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so) [...] --- cut --- or with AFL's libdislocator under gdb: --- cut --- Continuing. Iteration (0,0) *** [AFL] bad allocator canary on free() *** Thread 2 "java" received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. [...] Stopped reason: SIGABRT __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:51 51 ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory. gdb$ where #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:51 #1 0x00007ffff72313fa in __GI_abort () at abort.c:89 #2 0x00007ffff7bd651c in free () from libdislocator/libdislocator.so #3 0x00007fffb892f2b2 in LEGlyphStorage::reset() () from jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so #4 0x00007fffb8939ff4 in OpenTypeLayoutEngine::~OpenTypeLayoutEngine() () from jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so #5 0x00007fffb891a66f in ArabicOpenTypeLayoutEngine::~ArabicOpenTypeLayoutEngine() () from jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so #6 0x00007fffb8940990 in Java_sun_font_SunLayoutEngine_nativeLayout () from jre/8u202/lib/amd64/libfontmanager.so #7 0x00007fffe5e376c7 in ?? () #8 0x0000000000000000 in ?? () --- cut --- On Windows, the crash also reliably reproduces with PageHeap enabled for the java.exe process: --- cut --- (1184.4c60): Access violation - code c0000005 (first chance) First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling. This exception may be expected and handled. fontmanager!Java_sun_java2d_loops_DrawGlyphListLCD_DrawGlyphListLCD+0x14bf: 00007ffa`0d6291bf 428124810000ffff and dword ptr [rcx+r8*4],0FFFF0000h ds:00000000`39663ffc=???????? --- cut --- We have encountered crashes in the libfontmanager!GlyphIterator::setCurrGlyphID function while trying to write before and after a heap allocation. Attached with this report are two mutated testcases (for the buffer under- and overflow), and a simple Java program used to reproduce the vulnerability by loading TrueType fonts specified through a command-line parameter. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/46723.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Oracle>>Jdk >> Version 1.7.0

Oracle>>Jdk >> Version 1.8.0

Oracle>>Jre >> Version 1.7.0

Oracle>>Jre >> Version 1.8.0

Configuraton 0

Redhat>>Openshift_container_platform >> Version 3.11

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 8.0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 9.0

Configuraton 0

Opensuse>>Leap >> Version 15.0

Opensuse>>Leap >> Version 42.3

Configuraton 0

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 16.04

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 18.04

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 18.10

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 19.04

Configuraton 0

Redhat>>Satellite >> Version 5.8

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux >> Version 8.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_desktop >> Version 6.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_desktop >> Version 7.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_eus >> Version 8.1

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_eus >> Version 8.2

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_eus >> Version 8.4

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_eus >> Version 8.6

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server >> Version 6.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server >> Version 7.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server_aus >> Version 8.2

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server_aus >> Version 8.4

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server_aus >> Version 8.6

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server_tus >> Version 8.2

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server_tus >> Version 8.4

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server_tus >> Version 8.6

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_workstation >> Version 6.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_workstation >> Version 7.0

Configuraton 0

Hp>>Xp7_command_view >> Version To (excluding) 8.6.5-00

References

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:0959
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1146
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://usn.ubuntu.com/3975-1/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1164
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1163
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1165
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1166
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1238
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://www.debian.org/security/2019/dsa-4453
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_DEBIAN
https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/May/75
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_BUGTRAQ
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1325
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201908-10
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_GENTOO