GSD-2018-10470
Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:22Details
Little Snitch versions 4.0 to 4.0.6 use the SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors() function without the kSecCSCheckAllArchitectures flag and therefore do not validate all architectures stored in a fat binary. An attacker can maliciously craft a fat binary containing multiple architectures that may cause a situation where Little Snitch treats the running process as having no code signature at all while erroneously indicating that the binary on disk does have a valid code signature. This could lead to users being confused about whether or not the code signature is valid.
Aliases
Aliases
{
"GSD": {
"alias": "CVE-2018-10470",
"description": "Little Snitch versions 4.0 to 4.0.6 use the SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors() function without the kSecCSCheckAllArchitectures flag and therefore do not validate all architectures stored in a fat binary. An attacker can maliciously craft a fat binary containing multiple architectures that may cause a situation where Little Snitch treats the running process as having no code signature at all while erroneously indicating that the binary on disk does have a valid code signature. This could lead to users being confused about whether or not the code signature is valid.",
"id": "GSD-2018-10470"
},
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-10470"
],
"details": "Little Snitch versions 4.0 to 4.0.6 use the SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors() function without the kSecCSCheckAllArchitectures flag and therefore do not validate all architectures stored in a fat binary. An attacker can maliciously craft a fat binary containing multiple architectures that may cause a situation where Little Snitch treats the running process as having no code signature at all while erroneously indicating that the binary on disk does have a valid code signature. This could lead to users being confused about whether or not the code signature is valid.",
"id": "GSD-2018-10470",
"modified": "2023-12-13T01:22:41.259076Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
"DATE_PUBLIC": "2018-06-12T00:00:00",
"ID": "CVE-2018-10470",
"STATE": "PUBLIC"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "Little Snitch",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "4.0 - 4.0.6"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "Objective Development Software GmbH"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "Little Snitch versions 4.0 to 4.0.6 use the SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors() function without the kSecCSCheckAllArchitectures flag and therefore do not validate all architectures stored in a fat binary. An attacker can maliciously craft a fat binary containing multiple architectures that may cause a situation where Little Snitch treats the running process as having no code signature at all while erroneously indicating that the binary on disk does have a valid code signature. This could lead to users being confused about whether or not the code signature is valid."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://obdev.at/cve/2018-10470-8FRWkW4oH8.html",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://obdev.at/cve/2018-10470-8FRWkW4oH8.html"
},
{
"name": "https://www.okta.com/security-blog/2018/06/issues-around-third-party-apple-code-signing-checks/",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://www.okta.com/security-blog/2018/06/issues-around-third-party-apple-code-signing-checks/"
}
]
}
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"configurations": {
"CVE_data_version": "4.0",
"nodes": [
{
"children": [
{
"children": [],
"cpe_match": [
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:objective_development:little_snitch:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"versionEndIncluding": "4.0.6",
"versionStartIncluding": "4.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
},
{
"children": [],
"cpe_match": [
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:o:apple:macos:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"vulnerable": false
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
],
"cpe_match": [],
"operator": "AND"
}
]
},
"cve": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
"ID": "CVE-2018-10470"
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Little Snitch versions 4.0 to 4.0.6 use the SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors() function without the kSecCSCheckAllArchitectures flag and therefore do not validate all architectures stored in a fat binary. An attacker can maliciously craft a fat binary containing multiple architectures that may cause a situation where Little Snitch treats the running process as having no code signature at all while erroneously indicating that the binary on disk does have a valid code signature. This could lead to users being confused about whether or not the code signature is valid."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-347"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://obdev.at/cve/2018-10470-8FRWkW4oH8.html",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://obdev.at/cve/2018-10470-8FRWkW4oH8.html"
},
{
"name": "https://www.okta.com/security-blog/2018/06/issues-around-third-party-apple-code-signing-checks/",
"refsource": "MISC",
"tags": [
"Exploit",
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.okta.com/security-blog/2018/06/issues-around-third-party-apple-code-signing-checks/"
}
]
}
},
"impact": {
"baseMetricV2": {
"cvssV2": {
"accessComplexity": "LOW",
"accessVector": "NETWORK",
"authentication": "NONE",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.0,
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
"vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N",
"version": "2.0"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 10.0,
"impactScore": 2.9,
"obtainAllPrivilege": false,
"obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
"obtainUserPrivilege": false,
"severity": "MEDIUM",
"userInteractionRequired": false
},
"baseMetricV3": {
"cvssV3": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 1.4
}
},
"lastModifiedDate": "2022-04-18T17:31Z",
"publishedDate": "2018-06-12T17:29Z"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.
Loading…