CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2019-18988Exploited in the wildNVD status: Analyzed

TeamViewer Desktop Bypass Remote Login

CVE-2019-18988 is a high-severity weak password requirements vulnerability in Teamviewer, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.0 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected Teamviewer versions: 14.7.1965 and earlier. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. CISA added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on November 3, 2021, which means attacks have been observed in the wild.

Patch now

Attackers are already exploiting this vulnerability, according to CISA.

What to do

  1. Check which version of Teamviewer you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. CISA's required action: Apply updates per vendor instructions.
  3. Read the advisory on community.teamviewer.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
TeamviewerTeamviewer14.7.1965 and earlierNot stated

Version data comes from NVD's product matching. 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
HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
Privileges required
LowA basic user account is enough.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
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:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.

Scoring systemScoreSeverityScored by
CVSS 3.17.0HighNVD
CVSS 3.17.0HighCISA (ADP)
CVSS 2.04.4MediumNVD

Official description

TeamViewer Desktop through 14.7.1965 allows a bypass of remote-login access control because the same key is used for different customers' installations. It used a shared AES key for all installations since at least as far back as v7.0.43148, and used it for at least OptionsPasswordAES in the current version of the product. If an attacker were to know this key, they could decrypt protect information stored in the registry or configuration files of TeamViewer. With versions before v9.x , this allowed for attackers to decrypt the Unattended Access password to the system (which allows for remote login to the system as well as headless file browsing). The latest version still uses the same key for OptionPasswordAES but appears to have changed how the Unattended Access password is stored. While in most cases an attacker requires an existing session on a system, if the registry/configuration keys were stored off of the machine (such as in a file share or online), an attacker could then decrypt the required password to login to the system.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Weak Password Requirements

The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Consider a second authentication factor beyond the password, which prevents the password from being a single point of failure. See CWE-308 for further information.
  • Consider implementing a password complexity meter to inform users when a chosen password meets the required attributes.

More Weak Password Requirements vulnerabilities (CWE-521)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue.
  3. Deadline for US federal agencies to remediate, set by CISA.
  4. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: active, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
  5. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Technical write-ups (may include proof of concept)

Spotted an error? Tell us.