GHSA-37QJ-C4G3-9XVJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:53 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:53
VLAI?
Details

Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via multiple IOCTLs, e.g., 0x8810200B, 0x8810200F, 0x8810201B, 0x8810201F, 0x8810202B, 0x8810202F, 0x8810203F, 0x8810204B, 0x88102003, 0x88102007, 0x88102013, 0x88102017, 0x88102027, 0x88102033, 0x88102037, 0x88102043, and 0x88102047. When some conditions in the user-controlled input buffer are not met, the driver writes an error code (0x2000001A) to a user-controlled address. Also, note that all the aforementioned IOCTLs use transfer type METHOD_NEITHER, which means that the I/O manager does not validate any of the supplied pointers and buffer sizes. So, even though the driver checks for input/output buffer sizes, it doesn't validate if the pointers to those buffers are actually valid. So, we can supply a pointer for the output buffer to a kernel address space address, and the error code will be written there. We can take advantage of this condition to modify the SEP_TOKEN_PRIVILEGES structure of the Token object belonging to the exploit process and grant SE_DEBUG_NAME privilege. This allows the exploit process to interact with higher privileged processes running as SYSTEM and execute code in their security context.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2018-6854"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-119"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2018-07-09T18:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via multiple IOCTLs, e.g., 0x8810200B, 0x8810200F, 0x8810201B, 0x8810201F, 0x8810202B, 0x8810202F, 0x8810203F, 0x8810204B, 0x88102003, 0x88102007, 0x88102013, 0x88102017, 0x88102027, 0x88102033, 0x88102037, 0x88102043, and 0x88102047. When some conditions in the user-controlled input buffer are not met, the driver writes an error code (0x2000001A) to a user-controlled address. Also, note that all the aforementioned IOCTLs use transfer type METHOD_NEITHER, which means that the I/O manager does not validate any of the supplied pointers and buffer sizes. So, even though the driver checks for input/output buffer sizes, it doesn\u0027t validate if the pointers to those buffers are actually valid. So, we can supply a pointer for the output buffer to a kernel address space address, and the error code will be written there. We can take advantage of this condition to modify the SEP_TOKEN_PRIVILEGES structure of the Token object belonging to the exploit process and grant SE_DEBUG_NAME privilege. This allows the exploit process to interact with higher privileged processes running as SYSTEM and execute code in their security context.",
  "id": "GHSA-37qj-c4g3-9xvj",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:53:12Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:53:12Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-6854"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://community.sophos.com/kb/en-us/131934"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://labs.nettitude.com/blog/cve-2018-6851-to-cve-2018-6857-sophos-privilege-escalation-vulnerabilities"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2018/Jul/20"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…