Microsoft Malware Protection Engine Improper Restriction of Operations
CVE-2017-8540 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in Malware Protection Engine from Microsoft, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an unauthenticated attacker, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. CISA added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on March 3, 2022, which means attacks have been observed in the wild.
Attackers are already exploiting this vulnerability, according to CISA.
What to do
- Check which version of Malware Protection Engine you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- CISA's required action: Apply updates per vendor instructions.
- Read the advisory on portal.msrc.microsoft.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Because the attack needs a user to take part, warn users about unexpected links and files related to this product until it is patched.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft | Malware Protection Engine | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Microsoft | Endpoint Protection | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Microsoft | Exchange Server | 2013; 2016 | Not stated |
| Microsoft | Forefront Endpoint Protection | 2010 | Not stated |
| Microsoft | Forefront Security | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Microsoft | Intune Endpoint Protection | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Microsoft | Security Essentials | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Microsoft | System Center Endpoint Protection | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Microsoft | Windows Defender | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- RequiredA user must take an action such as opening a file or link.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | NVD |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | CISA (ADP) |
| CVSS 2.0 | 9.3 | High | NVD |
Official description
The Microsoft Malware Protection Engine running on Microsoft Forefront and Microsoft Defender on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016, Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 and 2016, does not properly scan a specially crafted file leading to memory corruption. aka "Microsoft Malware Protection Engine Remote Code Execution Vulnerability", a different vulnerability than CVE-2017-8538 and CVE-2017-8541.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue.
- Deadline for US federal agencies to remediate, set by CISA.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: active, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Advisories
Third-party and government advisories
- cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2017-8540US Government Resource
Technical write-ups (may include proof of concept)
- exploit-db.com/exploits/42088/Exploit, Third Party Advisory, VDB Entry
Other vulnerabilities in Malware Protection Engine
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.0 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Microsoft Defender Link Following Exploited
Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Google Chromium V8 Out-of-Bounds Memory Exploited
- 8.8 High severity
Microsoft Edge Memory Corruption Exploited
- 8.8 High severity
Apple iOS Webkit Memory Corruption Exploited
- 7.8 High severity
Apple iOS Memory Corruption Exploited
Spotted an error? Tell us.