CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2018-12217

Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

Published: Mar 14, 2019 | Modified: Oct 03, 2019
CVSS 3.x
2.3
LOW
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS 2.x
2.1 LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Insufficient access control in Kernel Mode Driver in Intel(R) Graphics Driver for Windows* before versions 10.18.x.5059 (aka 15.33.x.5059), 10.18.x.5057 (aka 15.36.x.5057), 20.19.x.5063 (aka 15.40.x.5063) 21.20.x.5064 (aka 15.45.x.5064) and 24.20.100.6373 potentially enables a privileged user to read device configuration information via local access.

Weakness

The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Graphics_driver Intel 15.33.43.4425 15.33.43.4425
Graphics_driver Intel 15.33.45.4653 15.33.45.4653
Graphics_driver Intel 15.33.46.4885 15.33.46.4885
Graphics_driver Intel 15.36.26.4294 15.36.26.4294
Graphics_driver Intel 15.36.28.4332 15.36.28.4332
Graphics_driver Intel 15.36.31.4414 15.36.31.4414
Graphics_driver Intel 15.36.33.4578 15.36.33.4578
Graphics_driver Intel 15.36.34.4889 15.36.34.4889
Graphics_driver Intel 15.40.34.4624 15.40.34.4624
Graphics_driver Intel 15.40.36.4703 15.40.36.4703
Graphics_driver Intel 15.40.37.4835 15.40.37.4835
Graphics_driver Intel 15.40.38.4963 15.40.38.4963
Graphics_driver Intel 15.40.41.5058 15.40.41.5058
Graphics_driver Intel 15.45.18.4664 15.45.18.4664
Graphics_driver Intel 15.45.19.4678 15.45.19.4678
Graphics_driver Intel 15.45.21.4821 15.45.21.4821
Graphics_driver Intel 15.45.23.4860 15.45.23.4860
Graphics_driver Intel 24.20.100.6025 24.20.100.6025
Graphics_driver Intel 24.20.100.6094 24.20.100.6094
Graphics_driver Intel 24.20.100.6136 24.20.100.6136
Graphics_driver Intel 24.20.100.6194 24.20.100.6194
Graphics_driver Intel 24.20.100.6229 24.20.100.6229
Graphics_driver Intel 24.20.100.6286 24.20.100.6286

Potential Mitigations

  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References