CVE-2015-0090 in Windows
Summary
by MITRE
Adobe Font Driver in Microsoft Windows Server 2003 SP2, Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, and Windows RT Gold and 8.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted (1) web site or (2) file, aka "Adobe Font Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-0088, CVE-2015-0091, CVE-2015-0092, and CVE-2015-0093.
VulDB is the best source for vulnerability data and more expert information about this specific topic.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 04/15/2022
The vulnerability identified as CVE-2015-0090 represents a critical remote code execution flaw within the Adobe Font Driver component of Microsoft Windows operating systems. This vulnerability affects a broad range of Windows versions including Windows Server 2003 SP2, Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, and Windows RT Gold and 8.1. The flaw specifically resides in how the Adobe Font Driver processes font files, creating a pathway for attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected systems. The vulnerability is categorized under CWE-121 as a stack-based buffer overflow, which occurs when insufficient bounds checking allows attackers to write data beyond the allocated buffer space, potentially corrupting memory and enabling code execution.
The attack vector for CVE-2015-0090 can be initiated through two primary methods: either by hosting a malicious website that delivers a specially crafted font file or by tricking users into opening a malicious file on their systems. This dual attack surface significantly increases the exploitability of the vulnerability, as both web-based and file-based delivery mechanisms can be employed by threat actors. The Adobe Font Driver component is particularly susceptible because it handles various font formats including TrueType and OpenType fonts, which are commonly used in document processing and web content rendering. When a user visits a compromised website or opens a malicious file, the vulnerable driver processes the font data without proper validation, allowing attackers to inject malicious code that executes with the privileges of the target user.
The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple code execution, as it provides attackers with a persistent foothold on compromised systems that can be leveraged for further attacks. The vulnerability's classification under the MITRE ATT&CK framework places it within the execution phase of attack chains, specifically targeting process injection and command and script interpreter techniques. Successful exploitation could allow threat actors to install malware, establish backdoors, perform privilege escalation, or conduct data exfiltration from affected systems. The vulnerability's presence across multiple Windows versions makes it particularly dangerous, as organizations with mixed operating system environments face increased risk of compromise. Additionally, the vulnerability's similarity to other CVE-2015-0088 through CVE-2015-0093 vulnerabilities indicates a broader pattern of font processing flaws that may have been overlooked in Microsoft's security hardening efforts.
Mitigation strategies for CVE-2015-0090 should include immediate patch deployment through Microsoft's security updates, as well as network-based protections such as web content filtering and sandboxing of font processing operations. Organizations should implement the principle of least privilege to limit the impact of successful exploitation, ensuring that font processing occurs with minimal system privileges. Network administrators should consider blocking access to known malicious domains and implementing application whitelisting policies that restrict font file execution. The vulnerability's nature as a buffer overflow makes it susceptible to exploitation through various attack techniques including return-oriented programming and heap spraying, emphasizing the need for comprehensive memory protection mechanisms. Security teams should also monitor for indicators of compromise related to this vulnerability, particularly unusual font processing activity or unexpected code execution patterns, and maintain updated threat intelligence feeds to identify potential exploitation attempts.