CVE-2017-8683 : Détail

CVE-2017-8683

5.5
/
Moyen
A01-Broken Access Control
18.16%V4
Local
2017-09-13
01h00 +00:00
2024-09-16
19h56 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Windows graphics 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, allows an attacker to execute remote code by the way it handles embedded fonts, aka "Win32k Graphics Remote Code Execution Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-8682.

Informations du CVE

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.

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

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.

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.
EPSS First.org

Informations sur l'Exploit

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 42746

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=1274 We have encountered a number of Windows kernel crashes in the win32k.sys driver while processing corrupted TTF font files: --- PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA (50) Invalid system memory was referenced. This cannot be protected by try-except, it must be protected by a Probe. Typically the address is just plain bad or it is pointing at freed memory. Arguments: Arg1: ff1effff, memory referenced. Arg2: 00000000, value 0 = read operation, 1 = write operation. Arg3: 91a65a52, If non-zero, the instruction address which referenced the bad memory address. Arg4: 00000000, (reserved) Debugging Details: ------------------ FAULTING_IP: win32k!fsc_CalcGrayRow+87 91a65a52 660fbe4fff movsx cx,byte ptr [edi-1] MM_INTERNAL_CODE: 0 DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID: WIN7_DRIVER_FAULT BUGCHECK_STR: 0x50 PROCESS_NAME: csrss.exe CURRENT_IRQL: 0 ANALYSIS_VERSION: 6.3.9600.17237 (debuggers(dbg).140716-0327) x86fre LAST_CONTROL_TRANSFER: from 91a65990 to 91a65a52 STACK_TEXT: 981a885c 91a65990 ff1f83f8 ff1f8140 ff1f83a8 win32k!fsc_CalcGrayRow+0x87 981a88a0 919e26ac 00000008 ff1f8010 fbb36e78 win32k!fsc_CalcGrayMap+0x105 981a88e8 91b69e1a ff1f8010 ff1f807c 00000005 win32k!fs_ContourScan+0x582 981a89f4 91b69ef2 00000000 00000005 981a8b08 win32k!lGGOBitmap+0x15f 981a8a1c 919dd4f0 fbb36e78 00000005 981a8b08 win32k!ttfdGlyphBitmap+0x60 981a8a40 919dd386 fc23ccf0 00000009 00000005 win32k!ttfdQueryFontData+0x115 981a8a90 919dc5b2 00000000 fc23ccf0 00000009 win32k!ttfdSemQueryFontData+0x45 981a8ad8 91b351b4 00000000 fc23ccf0 00000009 win32k!PDEVOBJ::QueryFontData+0x3e 981a8b90 91b2cd60 fc23ccf0 fc23ccf0 00000006 win32k!GreGetGlyphOutlineInternal+0x534 981a8c0c 8288587a 04010215 00000022 00000006 win32k!NtGdiGetGlyphOutline+0x95 981a8c0c 76f370b4 04010215 00000022 00000006 nt!KiFastCallEntry+0x12a WARNING: Frame IP not in any known module. Following frames may be wrong. 0020f504 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0x76f370b4 --- The above crash dump comes from an old version of Windows 7 32-bit, because symbols for win32k.sys on the latest build are currently unavailable on the Microsoft Symbol Server. Nevertheless, a crash summary from an up-to-date system is as follows: --- cut --- PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA (50) Invalid system memory was referenced. This cannot be protected by try-except, it must be protected by a Probe. Typically the address is just plain bad or it is pointing at freed memory. Arguments: Arg1: ff1e3fff, memory referenced. Arg2: 00000000, value 0 = read operation, 1 = write operation. Arg3: 91ce9382, If non-zero, the instruction address which referenced the bad memory address. Arg4: 00000000, (reserved) Debugging Details: ------------------ FAULTING_IP: win32k!EngDeleteClip+4883 91ce9382 660fbe4fff movsx cx,byte ptr [edi-1] MM_INTERNAL_CODE: 0 DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID: WIN7_DRIVER_FAULT BUGCHECK_STR: 0x50 PROCESS_NAME: csrss.exe CURRENT_IRQL: 0 ANALYSIS_VERSION: 6.3.9600.17237 (debuggers(dbg).140716-0327) x86fre LAST_CONTROL_TRANSFER: from 91ce92c0 to 91ce9382 STACK_TEXT: WARNING: Stack unwind information not available. Following frames may be wrong. 9aa98858 91ce92c0 ff1ee3f8 ff1ee140 ff1ee3a8 win32k!EngDeleteClip+0x4883 9aa9889c 91c64346 00000008 ff1ee010 fb9dce78 win32k!EngDeleteClip+0x47c1 9aa988e4 91dfa025 ff1ee010 ff1ee07c 00000005 win32k!XFORMOBJ_iGetXform+0x5864 9aa989f0 91dfa0fd 00000000 00000005 9aa98b04 win32k!XLATEOBJ_hGetColorTransform+0x40a1c 9aa98a18 91c5f086 fb9dce78 00000005 9aa98b04 win32k!XLATEOBJ_hGetColorTransform+0x40af4 9aa98a3c 91c5ef1c fc22ccf0 00000009 00000005 win32k!XFORMOBJ_iGetXform+0x5a4 9aa98a8c 91c5e138 00000000 fc22ccf0 00000009 win32k!XFORMOBJ_iGetXform+0x43a 9aa98ad4 91dc3424 00000000 fc22ccf0 00000009 win32k!EngCTGetGammaTable+0xc967 9aa98b90 91dbafcc fc22ccf0 fc22ccf0 00000006 win32k!XLATEOBJ_hGetColorTransform+0x9e1b 9aa98c0c 82888986 0c0104d1 00000022 00000006 win32k!XLATEOBJ_hGetColorTransform+0x19c3 9aa98c0c 77986c74 0c0104d1 00000022 00000006 nt!KiSystemServicePostCall 001cf4ac 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0x77986c74 --- cut --- While we have not determined the specific root cause of the vulnerability, we have pinpointed the offending mutations to reside in the "glyf" table. The issue reproduces on Windows 7 (other platforms untested). It is easiest to reproduce with Special Pools enabled for win32k.sys. In order to reproduce the problem with the provided samples, it is necessary to use a custom program which calls the GetGlyphOutline() API with various parameters over all of the font's glyphs. Attached is an archive with several proof-of-concept mutated TTF files. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/42746.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

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_server_2008 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version -

Références

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42746/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1039338
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/100781
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID