Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

2/20/2013
05:38 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Adobe Fixes Sandbox Flaw Used In Attacks

Sandbox will continue to evolve with tighter security, Adobe says

When Adobe was alerted earlier this month to two critical zero-day bugs in Reader and Acrobat that were being actively abused in targeted attacks, there was a looming sense of deja vu. This wasn't the first time Adobe had dealt with and fixed vulnerabilities in its sandbox, but it was the first time bugs that beat the sandbox were being exploited in the wild in real attacks.

One week after issuing an advisory about the attacks, Adobe today released patches for Adobe Reader and Acrobat that fix the two flaws used in attacks that tried to lure users into clicking on malicious PDFs in email messages. The APSB13-07 security update addresses the "critical vulnerabilities" in Adobe Reader and Acrobat XI (11.0.01 and earlier) for Windows and Mac machines X (10.1.5 and earlier) for Windows and Macintosh, 9.5.3 and earlier 9.x versions for Windows and Macintosh, and Adobe Reader 9.5.3 and earlier 9.x versions for Linux.

The exploit used the two bugs to bypass Adobe Reader 10's sandbox feature and to sneak past the Protected Mode sandbox in Reader XI -- key security features Adobe had added to its apps to prevent malware from poisoned PDFs from spreading to other parts of the machine.

[Adobe Reader's 'Protected Mode' will make PDF attacks tougher to execute, but it can't stop every threat. See What Adobe's New PDF Sandbox Really Means For Attackers. ]

The bugs and subsequent patches were a far cry from a similar threat brought to Adobe's attention in November, when Russian security firm Group IB issued a press release saying it had discovered a zero-day bug in Adobe X that could cheat Adobe's sandbox feature. Group IB said at the time that the flaw was included in the Blackhole exploit kit as well.

But Adobe has yet to see proof that the bug exists, says Dave Lenoe, director of security software engineering for Adobe. "They didn't provide a PoC [proof-of-concept] even though they said they had it," he says.

Andrey Komarov, head of the international projects department for Group-IB, said in a statement in the fall that the bug has some limitations: "For example, it could be successfully exploited only after the user will close the browser and restart it. Another variant is to organize interaction between the victim and the malformed PDF-document," he said.

But after months of back-and-forth communication and still no proof, Adobe finally gave up on getting a PoC from Group IB. "At a certain point about three weeks ago, we sent them an email and said, 'Here's the situation: It has been over three months and no PoC or demonstration of the bypass,'" Lenoe says. Adobe also pointed out that independent researcher Chris Kaspersky had pointed out an "anomaly" of code that wasn't actually part of Adobe's library.

"We've had a couple of emails from them since, but no PoC," Lenoe says, so no proof of such an exploit.

Kaspersky, who is not related to Eugene Kaspersky, provided proof that he could crash the Adobe sandbox in Reader X, which Adobe fixed a few months ago. He never demonstrated an actual bypass of the sandbox, however, Lenoe says.

Overall, Adobe's sandbox thus far has been a solid method of preventing exploits. "If there's a bypass for this, we want to fix it immediately," Lenoe said in presentation about the Group IB incident earlier this month at the Kaspersky Lab Security Analyst Summit.

But like any security technology, it will continue being challenged by the bad guys. And Adobe isn't sitting by waiting for the next bug to be found: "Between Reader X and Reader XI, we have improved the sandbox pretty considerably. We've added what we call the Super Sandbox, or Protected View, and enhanced the security of XI that blocks this sandbox bypass [attack]," Lenoe says. "We've already done a lot of work on improving the sandbox and adding extra mitigations. It's certainly an evolving process in defense-in-depth, and we're always looking to improve it."

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...