CVE-2017-0284 : Detail

CVE-2017-0284

5
/
Medium
A01-Broken Access Control
10.03%V4
Local
2017-06-14
23h00 +00:00
2017-08-11
13h57 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

Uniscribe in Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, 1703, Windows Server 2016, Microsoft Office 2007 SP3, and Microsoft Office 2010 SP2 allows improper disclosure of memory contents, aka "Windows Uniscribe Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-0282, CVE-2017-0285, and CVE-2017-8534.

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 5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

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.

Low

The attacker 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 has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

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.

 nvd@nist.gov
V2 1.9 AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N 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.
EPSS First.org

Exploit information

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 42235

Publication date : 2017-06-22 22h00 +00:00
Author : Google Security Research
EDB Verified : Yes

Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1199 We have encountered a crash in the Windows Uniscribe user-mode library, in the USP10!ttoGetTableData function, while trying to display text using a corrupted TTF font file: --- (210.274): Access violation - code c0000005 (first chance) First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling. This exception may be expected and handled. eax=000002f6 ebx=000000d0 ecx=0361c003 edx=0000d0d0 esi=0361c000 edi=016101e4 eip=774d3d43 esp=0046f1e0 ebp=0046f1f0 iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz na pe nc cs=001b ss=0023 ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003b gs=0000 efl=00010206 USP10!ttoGetTableData+0x1aa3: 774d3d43 660fb606 movzx ax,byte ptr [esi] ds:0023:0361c000=?? 0:000> kb # ChildEBP RetAddr Args to Child 00 0046f1f0 774d2e10 00000000 00000001 0361b734 USP10!ttoGetTableData+0x1aa3 01 0046f230 774d2d68 0361b73c 036255f8 0046f250 USP10!ttoGetTableData+0xb70 02 0046f258 774d22f1 036255f8 036255f8 0361b734 USP10!ttoGetTableData+0xac8 03 0046f26c 774c75b8 03619fd0 036199d0 0046f308 USP10!ttoGetTableData+0x51 04 0046f2cc 774c7124 0000001a 035b3d88 035c1fa8 USP10!LoadTTOArabicShapeTables+0x3e8 05 0046f2e0 774cc734 9a010536 035b3d88 035a6124 USP10!LoadArabicShapeTables+0xd4 06 0046f2fc 774ba5a0 9a010536 036197d0 0000001a USP10!ArabicLoadTbl+0xd4 07 0046f324 774ba692 035a6124 9a010536 0000001a USP10!UpdateCache+0xb0 08 0046f338 774c15fd 9a010536 035a6000 774c16ab USP10!ScriptCheckCache+0x62 09 0046f344 774c16ab 00000001 00000001 00000000 USP10!GetShapeFunction+0xd 0a 0046f37c 774c2bd4 00000001 00000000 0046f3fc USP10!RenderItemNoFallback+0x5b 0b 0046f3a8 774c2e62 00000001 00000000 0046f3fc USP10!RenderItemWithFallback+0x104 0c 0046f3cc 774c43f9 00000000 0046f3fc 035a6124 USP10!RenderItem+0x22 0d 0046f410 774b7a04 000004a0 00000400 9a010536 USP10!ScriptStringAnalyzeGlyphs+0x1e9 0e 0046f428 760a1736 9a010536 035a6040 0000000a USP10!ScriptStringAnalyse+0x284 0f 0046f474 760a18c1 9a010536 0046f8f8 0000000a LPK!LpkStringAnalyse+0xe5 10 0046f570 760a17b4 9a010536 00000000 00000000 LPK!LpkCharsetDraw+0x332 11 0046f5a4 77df56a9 9a010536 00000000 00000000 LPK!LpkDrawTextEx+0x40 12 0046f5e4 77df5a64 9a010536 00000058 00000000 USER32!DT_DrawStr+0x13c 13 0046f630 77df580f 9a010536 0046f8f8 0046f90c USER32!DT_GetLineBreak+0x78 14 0046f6dc 77df5882 9a010536 00000000 0000000a USER32!DrawTextExWorker+0x250 15 0046f700 77df5b68 9a010536 0046f8f8 ffffffff USER32!DrawTextExW+0x1e [...] 0:000> !heap -p -a esi-1 address 0361bfff found in _DPH_HEAP_ROOT @ 35a1000 in busy allocation ( DPH_HEAP_BLOCK: UserAddr UserSize - VirtAddr VirtSize) 35a1780: 361b1b0 e4e - 361b000 2000 73448e89 verifier!AVrfDebugPageHeapAllocate+0x00000229 77d26206 ntdll!RtlDebugAllocateHeap+0x00000030 77cea127 ntdll!RtlpAllocateHeap+0x000000c4 77cb5950 ntdll!RtlAllocateHeap+0x0000023a 7433ae6a vrfcore!VerifierSetAPIClassName+0x000000aa 774c6724 USP10!UspAllocCache+0x00000054 774c728f USP10!LoadTTOArabicShapeTables+0x000000bf 774c7124 USP10!LoadArabicShapeTables+0x000000d4 774cc734 USP10!ArabicLoadTbl+0x000000d4 774ba5a0 USP10!UpdateCache+0x000000b0 774ba692 USP10!ScriptCheckCache+0x00000062 774c15fd USP10!GetShapeFunction+0x0000000d 774c2bd4 USP10!RenderItemWithFallback+0x00000104 774c2e62 USP10!RenderItem+0x00000022 774c43f9 USP10!ScriptStringAnalyzeGlyphs+0x000001e9 774b7a04 USP10!ScriptStringAnalyse+0x00000284 760a1736 LPK!LpkStringAnalyse+0x000000e5 760a18c1 LPK!LpkCharsetDraw+0x00000332 760a17b4 LPK!LpkDrawTextEx+0x00000040 77df56a9 USER32!DT_DrawStr+0x0000013c 77df5a64 USER32!DT_GetLineBreak+0x00000078 77df580f USER32!DrawTextExWorker+0x00000250 77df5882 USER32!DrawTextExW+0x0000001e 77df5b68 USER32!DrawTextW+0x0000004d [...] --- The issue reproduces on Windows 7, and could be potentially used to disclose sensitive data from the process heap. It is easiest to reproduce with PageHeap enabled, but it is also possible to observe a crash in a default system configuration. In order to reproduce the problem with the provided samples, it might be necessary to use a custom program which displays all of the font's glyphs at various point sizes. Attached are 3 proof of concept malformed font files which trigger the crash. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/42235.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Office >> Version 2007

Microsoft>>Office >> Version 2010

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1511

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1607

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 -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version -

References

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98918
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42235/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.