English
Français
Light
Dark
System

CVEFind - Alertes CVE

Restez informé en continue
Créer un compte Ouvrez un compte Simple et Gratuit Se connecter Gérez vos alertes

CVE-2017-0038 : Détail

CVE-2017-0038

5.5
/
MEDIUM
A01-Broken Access Control
97.11%V3
Local
2017-02-20 15:00 +00:00
2017-08-31 07:57 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD

Alerte pour un CVE

Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des alertes

Descriptions

gdi32.dll in Graphics Device Interface (GDI) in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from process heap memory via a crafted EMF file, as demonstrated by an EMR_SETDIBITSTODEVICE record with modified Device Independent Bitmap (DIB) dimensions. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2016-3216, CVE-2016-3219, and/or CVE-2016-3220.

Informations

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse 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

Metric Score Sévérité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.0 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.0/AV:L/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.

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.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against 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 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.

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 that one has in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

 [email protected]
V2 4.3 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N [email protected]

EPSS

EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

EPSS Score

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

EPSS Percentile

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.
EPSS First.org

Informations sur l'Exploit

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 41363

Date de publication : 2017-02-14 23:00 +00:00
Auteur : Google Security Research
EDB Vérifié : Yes

Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=992 In issue #757, I described multiple bugs related to the handling of DIBs (Device Independent Bitmaps) embedded in EMF records, as implemented in the user-mode Windows GDI library (gdi32.dll). As a quick reminder, the DIB-embedding records follow a common scheme: they include four fields, denoting the offsets and lengths of the DIB header and DIB data (named offBmiSrc, cbBmiSrc, offBitsSrc, cbBitsSrc). A correct implementation should verify that: 1) cbBmiSrc is within expected bounds, accounting for the DIB header, color palette etc. 2) the (offBmiSrc, offBmiSrc + cbBmiSrc) region resides within the record buffer's area. 3) cbBitsSrc is within expected bounds, and especially that it is larger or equal the expected number of bitmap bytes. 4) the (offBitsSrc, offBitsSrc + cbBitsSrc) region resides within the record buffer's area. In the previous bug, I listed various combinations of missing checks in at least 10 different records: - EMR_ALPHABLEND - EMR_BITBLT - EMR_MASKBLT - EMR_PLGBLT - EMR_STRETCHBLT - EMR_TRANSPARENTBLT - EMR_SETDIBITSTODEVICE - EMR_STRETCHDIBITS - EMR_CREATEMONOBRUSH - EMR_EXTCREATEPEN As part of MS16-074, some of the bugs were indeed fixed, such as the EMR_STRETCHBLT record, which the original proof-of-concept image relied on. However, we've discovered that not all of the DIB-related problems are gone. For instance, the implementation of EMR_SETDIBITSTODEVICE (residing in the MRSETDIBITSTODEVICE::bPlay function) still doesn't enforce condition #3. As a result, it is possible to disclose uninitialized or out-of-bounds heap bytes via pixel colors, in Internet Explorer and other GDI clients which allow the extraction of displayed image data back to the attacker. The proof-of-concept file attached here consists of a single EMR_SETDIBITSTODEVICE record (excluding the header/EOF records), which originally contained a 1x1 bitmap. The dimensions of the DIB were then manually altered to 16x16, without adding any more actual image data. As a consequence, the 16x16/24bpp bitmap is now described by just 4 bytes, which is good for only a single pixel. The remaining 255 pixels are drawn based on junk heap data, which may include sensitive information, such as private user data or information about the virtual address space. I have confirmed that the vulnerability reproduces both locally in Internet Explorer, and remotely in Office Online, via a .docx document containing the specially crafted EMF file. It is strongly advised to perform a careful audit of all EMF record handlers responsible for dealing with DIBs, in order to make sure that each of them correctly enforces all four conditions necessary to prevent invalid memory access (and subsequent memory disclosure) while processing the bitmaps. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/41363.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

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 r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version *

Microsoft>>Windows_vista >> Version *

References

http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037845
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/96023
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/41363/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB

Plus d'informations
Cliquez sur le bouton à gauche (OFF), pour autoriser l'inscription de cookie améliorant les fonctionnalités du site. Cliquez sur le bouton à gauche (Tout accepter), pour ne plus autoriser l'inscription de cookie améliorant les fonctionnalités du site.