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

Microsoft Chakra JIT Server Out-Of-Bounds Write

Microsoft Chakra JIT Server Out-Of-Bounds Write
Posted Aug 16, 2017
Authored by Ivan Fratric, Google Security Research

The Microsoft Chakra JIT server suffers from an out-of-bounds write when processing a Js::OpCode::ProfiledLoopStart opcode.

tags | advisory
advisories | CVE-2017-8659
SHA-256 | 387a94a74877e5ae454670d88bca2108bf8b2e2ad1eedbea3c88071c8f4cfb35

Microsoft Chakra JIT Server Out-Of-Bounds Write

Change Mirror Download
 Microsoft Chakra JIT server out-of-bounds write when processing Js::OpCode::ProfiledLoopStart opcode 

CVE-2017-8659


There is an issue in Chakra JIT server that can be potentially exploited to compromise the JIT process from a compromised browser content process. Bugs like this could potentially be used to bypass ACG (Arbitrary Code Guard) in Microsoft Edge.

The issue has been confirmed on a ChakraCore build from source.

Chakra JIT server takes bytecode as an input from the calling process. When processing the Js::OpCode::ProfiledLoopStart opcode in IRBuilder::BuildUnsigned1() function in IRBuilder.cpp there is this line

this->m_saveLoopImplicitCallFlags[num] = saveOpnd;

where num is client-controlled (it's an usigned char following the Js::OpCode::ProfiledLoopStart opcode).

m_saveLoopImplicitCallFlags is allocated in IRBuilder.h as

m_saveLoopImplicitCallFlags = (IR::Opnd**)func->m_alloc->Alloc(sizeof(IR::Opnd*) * loopCount);

where loopCount is also client-controlled (workItemData->jitData->bodyData->loopCount).

Thus if a client sets num larger than loopCount, an out-of-bounds write will occur. There appear to be no bounds checks related to this array, there are some asserts that happen *after* the overrwrite already occurred and they will not be present in the Release builds.


Note that there is also an integer overflow when m_saveLoopImplicitCallFlags is being allocated:
sizeof(IR::Opnd*) * loopCount
that's going to affect 32-bit processes.


Speaking of integer overflows that will affect 32-bit processes, there are also several other similar instances such as
this->tempMap = (SymID*)m_tempAlloc->AllocZero(sizeof(SymID) * tempCount);
in IRBuilder.cpp (as far as I can tell tempCount is going to be controllable by the user) an probably other places.


This bug is subject to a 90 day disclosure deadline. After 90 days elapse
or a patch has been made broadly available, the bug report will become
visible to the public.




Found by: ifratric

Login or Register to add favorites

File Archive:

June 2023

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

Top Authors In Last 30 Days

File Tags

Systems

packet storm

© 2022 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.

Services
Security Services
Hosting By
Rokasec
close