Code injection vulnerability in Avast Premier 12.3 (and earlier), Internet Security 12.3 (and earlier), Pro Antivirus 12.3 (and earlier), and Free Antivirus 12.3 (and earlier) allows a local attacker to bypass a self-protection mechanism, inject arbitrary code, and take full control of any Avast process via a DoubleAgent attack. One perspective on this issue is that (1) these products do not use the Protected Processes feature, and therefore an attacker can enter an arbitrary Application Verifier Provider DLL under Image File Execution Options in the registry; (2) the self-protection mechanism is intended to block all local processes (regardless of privileges) from modifying Image File Execution Options for these products; and (3) this mechanism can be bypassed by an attacker who temporarily renames Image File Execution Options during the attack.
The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free_antivirus | Avast | * | 12.3 (including) |
| Internet_security | Avast | * | 12.3 (including) |
| Premier | Avast | * | 12.3 (including) |
| Pro_antivirus | Avast | * | 12.3 (including) |
Although this weakness can occur with any type of resource, it is frequently introduced when a product uses a directory search path to find executables or code libraries, but the path contains a directory that can be modified by an attacker, such as “/tmp” or the current working directory. In Windows-based systems, when the LoadLibrary or LoadLibraryEx function is called with a DLL name that does not contain a fully qualified path, the function follows a search order that includes two path elements that might be uncontrolled:
In some cases, the attack can be conducted remotely, such as when SMB or WebDAV network shares are used. One or more locations in that path could include the Windows drive root or its subdirectories. This often exists in Linux-based code assuming the controlled nature of the root directory (/) or its subdirectories (/etc, etc), or a code that recursively accesses the parent directory. In Windows, the drive root and some of its subdirectories have weak permissions by default, which makes them uncontrolled. In some Unix-based systems, a PATH might be created that contains an empty element, e.g. by splicing an empty variable into the PATH. This empty element can be interpreted as equivalent to the current working directory, which might be an untrusted search element. In software package management frameworks (e.g., npm, RubyGems, or PyPi), the framework may identify dependencies on third-party libraries or other packages, then consult a repository that contains the desired package. The framework may search a public repository before a private repository. This could be exploited by attackers by placing a malicious package in the public repository that has the same name as a package from the private repository. The search path might not be directly under control of the developer relying on the framework, but this search order effectively contains an untrusted element.