CPE, qui signifie Common Platform Enumeration, est un système normalisé de dénomination du matériel, des logiciels et des systèmes d'exploitation. CPE fournit un schéma de dénomination structuré pour identifier et classer de manière unique les systèmes informatiques, les plates-formes et les progiciels sur la base de certains attributs tels que le fournisseur, le nom du produit, la version, la mise à jour, l'édition et la langue.
CWE, ou Common Weakness Enumeration, est une liste complète et une catégorisation des faiblesses et des vulnérabilités des logiciels. Elle sert de langage commun pour décrire les faiblesses de sécurité des logiciels au niveau de l'architecture, de la conception, du code ou de la mise en œuvre, qui peuvent entraîner des vulnérabilités.
CAPEC, qui signifie Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (énumération et classification des schémas d'attaque communs), est une ressource complète, accessible au public, qui documente les schémas d'attaque communs utilisés par les adversaires dans les cyberattaques. Cette base de connaissances vise à comprendre et à articuler les vulnérabilités communes et les méthodes utilisées par les attaquants pour les exploiter.
Services & Prix
Aides & Infos
Recherche de CVE id, CWE id, CAPEC id, vendeur ou mots clés dans les CVE
The kernel in Microsoft 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, and Windows Server 2016 allows an authenticated attacker to obtain information via a specially crafted application. aka "Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2017-8492, CVE-2017-8491, CVE-2017-8490, CVE-2017-8489, CVE-2017-8488, CVE-2017-8485, CVE-2017-8482, CVE-2017-8480, CVE-2017-8479, CVE-2017-8478, CVE-2017-8476, CVE-2017-8474, CVE-2017-8469, CVE-2017-8462, CVE-2017-0300, CVE-2017-0299, and CVE-2017-0297.
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.
Métriques
Métriques
Score
Gravité
CVSS Vecteur
Source
V3.0
5
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
More informations
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.
Low
The attacker is authorized with (i.e. 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 may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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
nvd@nist.gov
V2
1.9
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
nvd@nist.gov
EPSS
EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.
Score EPSS
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.
Date
EPSS V0
EPSS V1
EPSS V2 (> 2022-02-04)
EPSS V3 (> 2025-03-07)
EPSS V4 (> 2025-03-17)
2021-04-18
35.03%
–
–
–
–
2021-09-05
–
35.03%
–
–
–
2022-01-09
–
35.03%
–
–
–
2022-02-06
–
–
3.6%
–
–
2022-04-03
–
–
3.6%
–
–
2022-05-08
–
–
3.6%
–
–
2022-11-13
–
–
3.6%
–
–
2022-11-20
–
–
3.6%
–
–
2022-12-11
–
–
3.6%
–
–
2023-01-01
–
–
3.6%
–
–
2023-02-05
–
–
3.6%
–
–
2023-03-12
–
–
–
0.06%
–
2023-04-30
–
–
–
0.06%
–
2023-05-28
–
–
–
0.08%
–
2023-07-02
–
–
–
0.08%
–
2023-07-16
–
–
–
0.08%
–
2023-08-13
–
–
–
0.09%
–
2023-09-24
–
–
–
0.09%
–
2023-10-15
–
–
–
0.09%
–
2023-11-05
–
–
–
0.07%
–
2023-12-03
–
–
–
0.07%
–
2024-03-03
–
–
–
0.07%
–
2024-04-07
–
–
–
0.06%
–
2024-06-02
–
–
–
0.09%
–
2024-06-23
–
–
–
0.09%
–
2024-06-30
–
–
–
0.09%
–
2024-08-11
–
–
–
0.08%
–
2024-11-03
–
–
–
0.08%
–
2024-12-08
–
–
–
0.07%
–
2024-12-22
–
–
–
10.03%
–
2025-01-19
–
–
–
10.03%
–
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
3.25%
2025-03-30
–
–
–
–
5.21%
2025-03-30
–
–
–
–
5.21,%
Percentile EPSS
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.
Date de publication : 2017-06-22 22h00 +00:00 Auteur : Google Security Research EDB Vérifié : Yes
Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1213
We have encountered a Windows kernel crash in the ATMFD.DLL OpenType driver while processing a corrupted OTF font file, see below:
---
DRIVER_PAGE_FAULT_BEYOND_END_OF_ALLOCATION (d6)
N bytes of memory was allocated and more than N bytes are being referenced.
This cannot be protected by try-except.
When possible, the guilty driver's name (Unicode string) is printed on
the bugcheck screen and saved in KiBugCheckDriver.
Arguments:
Arg1: fb69b01e, memory referenced
Arg2: 00000000, value 0 = read operation, 1 = write operation
Arg3: 8f635862, if non-zero, the address which referenced memory.
Arg4: 00000000, (reserved)
Debugging Details:
------------------
[...]
FAULTING_IP:
ATMFD+35862
8f635862 803802 cmp byte ptr [eax],2
MM_INTERNAL_CODE: 0
CPU_COUNT: 4
CPU_MHZ: da3
CPU_VENDOR: GenuineIntel
CPU_FAMILY: 6
CPU_MODEL: 3e
CPU_STEPPING: 4
CPU_MICROCODE: 6,3e,4,0 (F,M,S,R) SIG: 19'00000000 (cache) 19'00000000 (init)
DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID: WIN7_DRIVER_FAULT
BUGCHECK_STR: 0xD6
PROCESS_NAME: csrss.exe
CURRENT_IRQL: 2
ANALYSIS_SESSION_HOST: WIN7-32-VM
ANALYSIS_SESSION_TIME: 03-21-2017 10:49:20.0375
ANALYSIS_VERSION: 10.0.10586.567 x86fre
LAST_CONTROL_TRANSFER: from 8f636088 to 8f635862
STACK_TEXT:
WARNING: Stack unwind information not available. Following frames may be wrong.
9625f538 8f636088 9625f790 05f70000 9625f790 ATMFD+0x35862
9625f630 8f6355b1 9625f790 05f70000 9625f64c ATMFD+0x36088
9625f734 8f635711 9625f790 05f70000 9625f868 ATMFD+0x355b1
9625f768 8f6051b0 00000000 9625f790 05f70000 ATMFD+0x35711
9625f808 8f607279 00000004 00000001 00000002 ATMFD+0x51b0
9625f888 8f603d14 00000000 00000000 94bb3200 ATMFD+0x7279
9625f96c 8f6e7b8d 00000004 fbad2fc0 fbadaff8 ATMFD+0x3d14
9625f9b4 8f6e7adf 00000001 fbad2fc0 fbadaff8 win32k!PDEVOBJ::LoadFontFile+0x3c
9625f9f4 8f6e74fc ffa6a130 0000002e fbad2fc0 win32k!vLoadFontFileView+0x291
9625fa80 8f6d6403 9625fb58 0000002e 00000001 win32k!PUBLIC_PFTOBJ::bLoadFonts+0x209
9625facc 8f6d73d8 9625fb58 0000002e 00000001 win32k!GreAddFontResourceWInternal+0xfb
9625fc14 8164ddb6 000d9b78 0000002e 00000001 win32k!NtGdiAddFontResourceW+0x142
9625fc14 77ad6c74 000d9b78 0000002e 00000001 nt!KiSystemServicePostCall
---
The bugcheck is caused by an attempt to read memory from an unmapped address. The specific expression being dereferenced by ATMFD.DLL is "base address of the Name INDEX data + NAME.offset[x] - 1", however no bounds checking is performed over the value of NAME.offset[x] before using it for pointer arithmetic. To our current knowledge, this condition can only lead to an out-of-bounds read, thus limiting the impact of the bug to remote denial of service, or potentially local kernel memory disclosure. However, we have not fully confirmed that the severity of the bug is not in fact more significant due to some further ATMFD logic we are not aware of.
Interestingly, the crash is almost identical to the one reported in Issue #386 (MSRC-30296) nearly two years ago, which was supposedly fixed as CVE-2015-2461 in the MS15-080 bulletin. The fact that the same bugcheck still reproduces can potentially mean that the patch was insufficient.
Only a single bitflip applied to a valid font file is sufficient to create an offending testcase (excluding SFNT table checksums). In our case, the byte at offset 0x375 in the original sample must be changed from 0x01 to 0x41. This corresponds to offset 0x71 of the "CFF " table. The PoC font can be found attached to this tracker entry.
The issue reproduces on Windows 7 (other platforms untested). It is easiest to reproduce with Special Pools enabled for ATMFD.DLL, leading to an immediate crash when the bug is triggered. The bugcheck occurs upon opening the font in any default utility such as the Windows Font Viewer -- no special tools are required.
Proof of Concept:
https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/42243.zip