Vulnerabilities > CVE-2015-2503 - Permissions, Privileges, and Access Controls vulnerability in Microsoft products

047910
CVSS 0.0 - NONE
Attack vector
UNKNOWN
Attack complexity
UNKNOWN
Privileges required
UNKNOWN
Confidentiality impact
UNKNOWN
Integrity impact
UNKNOWN
Availability impact
UNKNOWN

Summary

Microsoft Access 2007 SP3, Excel 2007 SP3, InfoPath 2007 SP3, OneNote 2007 SP3, PowerPoint 2007 SP3, Project 2007 SP3, Publisher 2007 SP3, Visio 2007 SP3, Word 2007 SP3, Office 2007 IME (Japanese) SP3, Access 2010 SP2, Excel 2010 SP2, InfoPath 2010 SP2, OneNote 2010 SP2, PowerPoint 2010 SP2, Project 2010 SP2, Publisher 2010 SP2, Visio 2010 SP2, Word 2010 SP2, Pinyin IME 2010, Access 2013 SP1, Excel 2013 SP1, InfoPath 2013 SP1, OneNote 2013 SP1, PowerPoint 2013 SP1, Project 2013 SP1, Publisher 2013 SP1, Visio 2013 SP1, Word 2013 SP1, Excel 2013 RT SP1, OneNote 2013 RT SP1, PowerPoint 2013 RT SP1, Word 2013 RT SP1, Access 2016, Excel 2016, OneNote 2016, PowerPoint 2016, Project 2016, Publisher 2016, Visio 2016, Word 2016, Skype for Business 2016, and Lync 2013 SP1 allow remote attackers to bypass a sandbox protection mechanism and gain privileges via a crafted web site that is accessed with Internet Explorer, as demonstrated by a transition from Low Integrity to Medium Integrity, aka "Microsoft Office Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability."

Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)

  • Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files, when the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high. The attack can be directed at a client system, such as causing buffer overrun through loading seemingly benign image files, as in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028 where specially crafted JPEG files could cause a buffer overrun once loaded into the browser. Another example targets clients reading pdf files. In this case the attacker simply appends javascript to the end of a legitimate url for a pdf (http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/danger-danger-danger/) http://path/to/pdf/file.pdf#whatever_name_you_want=javascript:your_code_here The client assumes that they are reading a pdf, but the attacker has modified the resource and loaded executable javascript into the client's browser process. The attack can also target server processes. The attacker edits the resource or configuration file, for example a web.xml file used to configure security permissions for a J2EE app server, adding role name "public" grants all users with the public role the ability to use the administration functionality. The server trusts its configuration file to be correct, but when they are manipulated, the attacker gains full control.
  • Blue Boxing
    This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
  • Restful Privilege Elevation
    Rest uses standard HTTP (Get, Put, Delete) style permissions methods, but these are not necessarily correlated generally with back end programs. Strict interpretation of HTTP get methods means that these HTTP Get services should not be used to delete information on the server, but there is no access control mechanism to back up this logic. This means that unless the services are properly ACL'd and the application's service implementation are following these guidelines then an HTTP request can easily execute a delete or update on the server side. The attacker identifies a HTTP Get URL such as http://victimsite/updateOrder, which calls out to a program to update orders on a database or other resource. The URL is not idempotent so the request can be submitted multiple times by the attacker, additionally, the attacker may be able to exploit the URL published as a Get method that actually performs updates (instead of merely retrieving data). This may result in malicious or inadvertent altering of data on the server.
  • Target Programs with Elevated Privileges
    This attack targets programs running with elevated privileges. The attacker would try to leverage a bug in the running program and get arbitrary code to execute with elevated privileges. For instance an attacker would look for programs that write to the system directories or registry keys (such as HKLM, which stores a number of critical Windows environment variables). These programs are typically running with elevated privileges and have usually not been designed with security in mind. Such programs are excellent exploit targets because they yield lots of power when they break. The malicious user try to execute its code at the same level as a privileged system call.

Msbulletin

bulletin_idMS15-116
bulletin_url
date2015-11-10T00:00:00
impactRemote Code Execution
knowledgebase_id3104540
knowledgebase_url
severityImportant
titleSecurity Update for Microsoft Office to Address Remote Code Execution

Nessus

NASL familyWindows : Microsoft Bulletins
NASL idSMB_NT_MS15-116.NASL
descriptionThe remote Windows host has a version of Microsoft Office, Access, Excel, InfoPath, OneNote, PowerPoint, Project, Publisher, Visio, Word, Excel Viewer, Word Viewer, SharePoint Server, Office Compatibility Pack, Office Web Apps, Skype for Business, or Lync installed that is affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - Multiple remote code execution vulnerabilities exist due to improper handling of objects in memory. A remote attacker can exploit these vulnerabilities by convincing a user to open a specially crafted Office file, resulting in execution of arbitrary code in the context of the current user. (CVE-2015-6038, CVE-2015-6091, CVE-2015-6092, CVE-2015-6093, CVE-2015-6094) - An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists when an attacker instantiates an affected Office application via a COM control. An attacker who successfully exploits this vulnerability can gain elevated privileges and break out of the Internet Explorer sandbox. (CVE-2015-2503)
last seen2020-06-01
modified2020-06-02
plugin id86823
published2015-11-10
reporterThis script is Copyright (C) 2015-2018 Tenable Network Security, Inc.
sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/86823
titleMS15-116: Security Update for Microsoft Office to Address Remote Code Execution (3104540)