exploit the possibilities
Home Files News &[SERVICES_TAB]About Contact Add New

Oracle Java SE 7 Update 15 Issues

Oracle Java SE 7 Update 15 Issues
Posted Mar 4, 2013
Authored by Adam Gowdiak | Site security-explorations.com

The saga between Security Explorations and Oracle continues as yet another issue has been reported upstream.

tags | advisory
SHA-256 | 62b15c41647306908f09a62162b45a2e5e879905919342200f2385c369e80460

Oracle Java SE 7 Update 15 Issues

Change Mirror Download

Hello All,

Last week, Oracle disputed our claim regarding one of the Issues
reported to the company on Feb 25, 2012. This was Issue 54 that
was partly responsible for a successful attack demonstrated in
the environment of Java SE 7 Update 15.

It turns out Oracle's attempt to deny Issue 54 turned out to be
quite fruitful. It made us look into Java SE 7 code and its docs
once again (gathering counterargument material). As a result:
- we confirmed that company's initial judgment of Issue 54 as the
"allowed behavior" contradicts both Java SE documentation as well
as existing security checks in code. It looks Oracle needs to
either start treating Issue 54 as a vulnerability or change the
docs and relax some of the existing security checks.
- 5 new security issues were discovered in Java SE 7 (numbered 56
to 60), which when combined together can be successfully used to
gain a complete Java security sandbox bypass in the environment
of Java SE 7 Update 15.

Our vulnerability report along with a working Proof of Concept
code was submitted to Oracle today [1].

Two of the issues found (59 and 60) could be potentially affecting
Java SE 6 (we haven't checked this due to Java SE 6 EOL status),
but since all of the issues need to be combined together to gain
a successful Java SE security compromise, we treat it as affecting
Java SE 7 only.

The attack breaks a couple of security checks introduced to Java
SE by Oracle over the recent months (Issues 57 and 58). It also
exploits code fragments that were missing proper security checks
corresponding to the very mirror code (Issue 59 and 60). Finally,
it demonstrates a difference between the JVM specification and
its implementation (Issue 56).

At the end, should we say that the Reflection API is the usual
victim ?

Thank you.

Best Regards
Adam Gowdiak

---------------------------------------------
Security Explorations
http://www.security-explorations.com
"We bring security research to the new level"
---------------------------------------------

References:
[1] SE-2012-01 Vendors status
http://www.security-explorations.com/en/SE-2012-01-status.html
Login or Register to add favorites

File Archive:

August 2024

  • Su
  • Mo
  • Tu
  • We
  • Th
  • Fr
  • Sa
  • 1
    Aug 1st
    15 Files
  • 2
    Aug 2nd
    22 Files
  • 3
    Aug 3rd
    0 Files
  • 4
    Aug 4th
    0 Files
  • 5
    Aug 5th
    15 Files
  • 6
    Aug 6th
    11 Files
  • 7
    Aug 7th
    43 Files
  • 8
    Aug 8th
    42 Files
  • 9
    Aug 9th
    36 Files
  • 10
    Aug 10th
    0 Files
  • 11
    Aug 11th
    0 Files
  • 12
    Aug 12th
    27 Files
  • 13
    Aug 13th
    18 Files
  • 14
    Aug 14th
    50 Files
  • 15
    Aug 15th
    33 Files
  • 16
    Aug 16th
    23 Files
  • 17
    Aug 17th
    0 Files
  • 18
    Aug 18th
    0 Files
  • 19
    Aug 19th
    43 Files
  • 20
    Aug 20th
    29 Files
  • 21
    Aug 21st
    42 Files
  • 22
    Aug 22nd
    26 Files
  • 23
    Aug 23rd
    25 Files
  • 24
    Aug 24th
    0 Files
  • 25
    Aug 25th
    0 Files
  • 26
    Aug 26th
    21 Files
  • 27
    Aug 27th
    28 Files
  • 28
    Aug 28th
    15 Files
  • 29
    Aug 29th
    41 Files
  • 30
    Aug 30th
    0 Files
  • 31
    Aug 31st
    0 Files

Top Authors In Last 30 Days

File Tags

Systems

packet storm

© 2024 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.

Services
Security Services
Hosting By
Rokasec
close