CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2018-14825

Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

Published: Sep 24, 2018 | Modified: Oct 09, 2019
CVSS 3.x
5.8
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

On Honeywell Mobile Computers (CT60 running Android OS 7.1, CN80 running Android OS 7.1, CT40 running Android OS 7.1, CK75 running Android OS 6.0, CN75 running Android OS 6.0, CN75e running Android OS 6.0, CT50 running Android OS 6.0, D75e running Android OS 6.0, CT50 running Android OS 4.4, D75e running Android OS 4.4, CN51 running Android OS 6.0, EDA50k running Android 4.4, EDA50 running Android OS 7.1, EDA50k running Android OS 7.1, EDA70 running Android OS 7.1, EDA60k running Android OS 7.1, and EDA51 running Android OS 8.1), a skilled attacker with advanced knowledge of the target system could exploit this vulnerability by creating an application that would successfully bind to the service and gain elevated system privileges. This could enable the attacker to obtain access to keystrokes, passwords, personal identifiable information, photos, emails, or business-critical documents.

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
Cn80 Honeywell - (including) - (including)
Ct40 Honeywell - (including) - (including)
Ct60 Honeywell - (including) - (including)
Eda50 Honeywell - (including) - (including)
Eda50k Honeywell - (including) - (including)
Eda60k Honeywell - (including) - (including)
Eda70 Honeywell - (including) - (including)

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