CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2018-0894

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Mar 14, 2018 | Modified: May 23, 2022
CVSS 3.x
4.7
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS 2.x
1.9 LOW
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

The Windows kernel in Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1 and RT 8.1, Windows Server 2012 and R2, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, 1703, and 1709, Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server, version 1709 allows an information disclosure vulnerability due to the way memory addresses are handled, aka Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability. This CVE is unique from CVE-2018-0811, CVE-2018-0813, CVE-2018-0814, CVE-2018-0895, CVE-2018-0896, CVE-2018-0897, CVE-2018-0898, CVE-2018-0899, CVE-2018-0900, CVE-2018-0901 and CVE-2018-0926.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Windows_10 Microsoft - (including) - (including)
Windows_10 Microsoft 1511 (including) 1511 (including)
Windows_10 Microsoft 1607 (including) 1607 (including)
Windows_10 Microsoft 1703 (including) 1703 (including)
Windows_10 Microsoft 1709 (including) 1709 (including)
Windows_7 Microsoft –sp1 (including) –sp1 (including)
Windows_8.1 Microsoft - (including) - (including)
Windows_rt_8.1 Microsoft - (including) - (including)
Windows_server Microsoft 1709 (including) 1709 (including)
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft –sp2 (including) –sp2 (including)
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft r2-sp1 (including) r2-sp1 (including)
Windows_server_2012 Microsoft * *
Windows_server_2012 Microsoft r2 (including) r2 (including)
Windows_server_2016 Microsoft - (including) - (including)

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

References