CVE-2019-0555 : Détail

CVE-2019-0555

7.8
/
HIGH
Authorization problems
A01-Broken Access Control
0.16%V3
Local
2019-01-08 20:00 +00:00
2019-01-17 09:57 +00:00

Alerte pour un CVE

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

Descriptions

An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists in the Microsoft XmlDocument class that could allow an attacker to escape from the AppContainer sandbox in the browser, aka "Microsoft XmlDocument Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability." This affects Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2019, Windows Server 2016, Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Windows 10 Servers.

Informations

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

Metrics

Metric Score Sévérité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.0 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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.

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.

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.

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.

Changed

An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the authorization privileges intended by the vulnerable component. In this case the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different.

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 4.4 AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.

Informations sur l'Exploit

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 46185

Date de publication : 2019-01-15 23:00 +00:00
Auteur : Google Security Research
EDB Vérifié : Yes

Windows: XmlDocument Insecure Sharing Elevation of Privilege Platform: Windows 10 1809 (almost certainly earlier versions as well). Class: Elevation of Privilege Security Boundary (per Windows Security Service Criteria): AppContainer Sandbox Summary: A number of Partial Trust Windows Runtime classes expose the XmlDocument class across process boundaries to less privileged callers which in its current form can be used to elevate privileges and escape the Edge Content LPAC sandbox. Description: When an AppContainer sandboxed application creates a partial trust class it’s instantiated inside a Runtime Broker running at the normal user privilege. While Windows.Data.Xml.Dom.XmlDocument is marked as Base Trust so would be instantiated inside the same process as the creator, there’s a number of partial trust classes which expose a XmlDocument object. An example of this is the ToastNotificationManager class which expose a XmlDocument through the GetTemplateContent static method. This is exposed to all normal AC and also has explicit permissions to allow lpacAppExperience capability to access it which all Edge Content LPAC processes have. The problem with XmlDocument is it doesn’t custom marshal the object over process boundaries, this means that the XmlDocument which is created by ToastNotificationManager stays in the Runtime Broker. If there’s any security issues with the use of XmlDocument interface then that’s a problem. Looking at the class it’s implemented inside msxml6.dll and is basically a MSXML.DOMDocument.6.0 class in all but name. Checking what interfaces the class supports you find the following (partial list): IPersistMoniker IPersistStream IPersistStreamInit IServiceProvider IStream IXMLDOMDocument IXMLDOMDocument2 IXMLDOMDocument3 IXMLDOMNode Windows::Xml::Dom::IXmlDocument Windows::Xml::Dom::IXmlDocumentIO Windows::Xml::Dom::IXmlDocumentIO2 Windows::Xml::Dom::IXmlNode Windows::Xml::Dom::IXmlNodeSelector Windows::Xml::Dom::IXmlNodeSerializer What sticks out is it supports IXMLDOMDocument* which is the normal MSXML interfaces. Even if the underlying implementation was based on the existing MSXML DOM Document I’d have expected that creating this object as a runtime object would wrap the MSXML object and only expose those interfaces needed for its use as a runtime object. However, it exposes everything. Potential issues with this are: IPersistMoniker could be used to save to a file with normal user privileges. IXMLDOMDocument supports a save method which can do the same thing. You can access the transformNode method to execute an XSLT template including arbitrary WSH script code (this is the _really_ bad one). So the easiest way to escape the sandbox would be to execute the XSLT script. As the script is running in the Runtime Broker it runs with full user privileges and so can trivially escape the sandbox including the Edge Content LPAC sandbox. The other classes which expose an XmlDocument: ToastNotification via the get_Content method. BadgeUpdateManager via the GetTemplateContent method. TileFlyoutUpdateManager again via GetTemplateContent. TileUpdateManager... You can work out the rest, I’ve got better things to do. Note that I think even if you remove all non-runtime interfaces exposed from XmlDocument just the built in functionality might be dangerous. For example you can call XmlDocument::loadXML with the ResolveExternals load setting which would likely allow you to steal files from the local system (a local XXE attack basically). Also I’m not entirely convinced that SaveToFileAsync is 100% safe when used OOP. It just calls StorageFile::OpenAsync method, in theory if you could get a StorageFile object for a file you can’t write to, if there’s normally a check in OpenAsync then that could result it an arbitrary file being overwritten. Fixing wise at the least I’d wrap XmlDocument better so that it only exposes runtime interfaces. In the general case I’d also consider exposing XmlDocument over a process boundary to be dangerous so you might want to try and do something about that. And alternative would be to implement IMarshal on the object to custom marshal the XML document across the process boundary so that any calls would only affect the local process, but that’d almost certainly introduce perf regressions as well as appcompat issues. But that’s not my problem. Proof of Concept: I’ve provided a PoC as a solution containing the C# PoC as well as a DLL which can be injected into Edge to demonstrate the issue. The PoC will inject the DLL into a running MicrosoftEdgeCP process and run the attack. Note that the PoC needs to know the relative location of the ntdll!LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle symbol for x64 in order to work. It should be set up for the initial release of RS5 (17763.1) but if you need to run it on another machine you’ll need to modify GetHandleAddress in the PoC to check the version string from NTDLL and return the appropriate location (you can get the offset in WinDBG using ‘? ntdll!LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle-ntdll). Also before you ask, the injection isn’t a CIG bypass you need to be able to create an image section from an arbitrary file to perform the injection which you can do inside a process running with CIG. 1) Compile the solution in “Release” mode for “Any CPU”. It’ll need to pull NtApiDotNet from NuGet to build. 2) Start a copy of Edge (ensure it’s not suspended). 3) Execute the PoC from the x64\Release directory. Expected Result: Accessing the XmlDocument provides no elevated privileges. Observed Result: Notepad executes outside the sandbox. Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/46185.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1607

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1703

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1709

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1803

Microsoft>>Windows_10 >> Version 1809

Microsoft>>Windows_8.1 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_rt_8.1 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version 1709

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version 1803

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2019 >> Version -

References

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/46185/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106395
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
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.