CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-30073

Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence

Published: Sep 10, 2024 | Modified: Sep 23, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Windows Security Zone Mapping Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability

Weakness

The product is vulnerable to file system contents disclosure through path equivalence. Path equivalence involves the use of special characters in file and directory names. The associated manipulations are intended to generate multiple names for the same object.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Windows_10_1507 Microsoft * 10.0.10240.20766 (excluding)
Windows_10_1607 Microsoft * 10.0.14393.7336 (excluding)
Windows_10_1809 Microsoft * 10.0.17763.6293 (excluding)
Windows_10_21h2 Microsoft * 10.0.19044.4894 (excluding)
Windows_10_22h2 Microsoft * 10.0.19045.4894 (excluding)
Windows_11_21h2 Microsoft * 10.0.22000.3197 (excluding)
Windows_11_22h2 Microsoft * 10.0.22621.4169 (excluding)
Windows_11_23h2 Microsoft * 10.0.22631.4169 (excluding)
Windows_11_24h2 Microsoft * 10.0.26100.1742 (excluding)
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft –sp2 (including) –sp2 (including)
Windows_server_2008 Microsoft r2-sp1 (including) r2-sp1 (including)
Windows_server_2012 Microsoft * 6.2.9200.25073 (excluding)
Windows_server_2012 Microsoft r2 (including) r2 (including)
Windows_server_2016 Microsoft * 10.0.14393.7336 (excluding)
Windows_server_2019 Microsoft * 10.0.17763.6293 (excluding)
Windows_server_2022 Microsoft * 10.0.20348.2700 (excluding)
Windows_server_2022_23h2 Microsoft * 10.0.25398.1128 (excluding)

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.

References