CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2010-0017

Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

Published: Feb 10, 2010 | Modified: Oct 30, 2018
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
9.3 HIGH
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Race condition in the SMB client implementation in Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 allows remote SMB servers and man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code, and in the SMB client implementation in Windows Vista Gold, SP1, and SP2 and Server 2008 Gold and SP2 allows local users to gain privileges, via a crafted SMB Negotiate response, aka SMB Client Race Condition Vulnerability.

Weakness

The program contains a code sequence that can run concurrently with other code, and the code sequence requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence that is operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Windows_7 Microsoft - -
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft * *
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft * *
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft * *
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft - -
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft - -
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft r2 r2
Windows_vista Microsoft * *
Windows_vista Microsoft * *
Windows_vista Microsoft * *
Windows_vista Microsoft - -

Extended Description

This can have security implications when the expected synchronization is in security-critical code, such as recording whether a user is authenticated or modifying important state information that should not be influenced by an outsider. A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:

A race condition exists when an “interfering code sequence” can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. Programmers may assume that certain code sequences execute too quickly to be affected by an interfering code sequence; when they are not, this violates atomicity. For example, the single “x++” statement may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read (the original value of x), followed by a computation (x+1), followed by a write (save the result to x). The interfering code sequence could be “trusted” or “untrusted.” A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the program; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable program.

Potential Mitigations

  • Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
  • Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

References