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-2017-8535 : Détail

CVE-2017-8535

5.5
/
MEDIUM
OverflowMemory Corruption
0.48%V3
Local
2017-05-26 18:00 +00:00
2017-08-12 07:57 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD

Alerte pour un CVE

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

Descriptions

The Microsoft Malware Protection Engine running on Microsoft Forefront and Microsoft Defender on 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, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016, Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 and 2016, does not properly scan a specially crafted file leading to denial of service. aka "Microsoft Malware Protection Engine Denial of Service Vulnerability", a different vulnerability than CVE-2017-8536, CVE-2017-8537, CVE-2017-8539, and CVE-2017-8542.

Informations

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-119 Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
CWE-369 Divide By Zero
The product divides a value by zero.
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
CWE-674 Uncontrolled Recursion
The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.

Metrics

Metric Score Sévérité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

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.

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.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

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.

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 4.3 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P [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 : 42081

Date de publication : 2017-05-28 22:00 +00:00
Auteur : Google Security Research
EDB Vérifié : Yes

Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1261 A detailed introduction to MsMpEng can be found in issue #1252 , so I will skip the background story here. Through fuzzing, we have discovered a number of ways to crash the service (and specifically code in the mpengine.dll module), by feeding it with malformed input testcases to scan. A summary of our findings is shown in the table below: +==============+===================================+==========================+=============+====================================================+=============================================+ | Name | Type | Requirements | Access Type | Observed symbol | Comments | +==============+===================================+==========================+=============+====================================================+=============================================+ | corruption_1 | Heap buffer overflow | PageHeap for MpMsEng.exe | - | free() called by NET_thread_ctx_t__FreeState_void_ | One-byte overflow. | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | corruption_2 | Heap corruption | PageHeap for MpMsEng.exe | - | free() called by CRsaPublicKey__Decrypt_uchar | May crash in other ways, e.g. invalid read. | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | corruption_3 | Unspecified memory corruption (?) | - | - | netvm_parse_routine_netinvoke_handle_t | Different crashes with/out PageHeap. | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | null_1 | NULL Pointer Dereference | - | READ | nUFSP_pdf__handleXFA_PDF_Value | | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | null_2 | NULL Pointer Dereference | - | READ | nUFSP_pdf__expandObjectStreams_void | | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | null_3 | NULL Pointer Dereference | - | READ | NET_context_unsigned | | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | null_4 | NULL Pointer Dereference | - | READ | nUFSP_pdf__expandObjectStreams_void_ | Similar to null_2, may be the same bug. | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | div_by_zero | Division by zero | - | - | x86_code_cost__get_cost_int | | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | recursion | Deep/infinite recursion | - | - | __EH_prolog3_catch_GS | | +--------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ The "corruption_1-3" issues are the most important ones, as they represent memory corruption problems and could potentially lead to execution of arbitrary code. On the other hand, "null_1-4", "div_by_zero" and "recursion" are low severity bugs that can only be used to bring the service process down. We have verified that all listed crashes occur on Windows 7 as soon as an offending sample is saved to disk and discovered by MsMpEng. For "corruption_1-2", the PageHeap mechanism must be enabled for the MsMpEng.exe program in order to reliably observe the unhandled exception. Attached is a ZIP archive (password: "mpengbugs") with up to 3 testcases for each of the 9 unique crashes. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/42081.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Windows_defender >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1511

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1607

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1703

Microsoft>>Windows_7 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_8.1 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_rt_8.1 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version -

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Endpoint_protection >> Version -

Microsoft>>Exchange_server >> Version 2013

Microsoft>>Exchange_server >> Version 2016

Microsoft>>Forefront_endpoint_protection >> Version -

Microsoft>>Forefront_endpoint_protection >> Version 2010

Microsoft>>Security_essentials >> Version -

Microsoft>>System_center_endpoint_protection >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_intune_endpoint_protection >> Version *

    References

    https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42081/
    Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
    http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98702
    Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
    http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038571
    Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK

    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.