CVE-2016-4161 in Flash Player
Summary
by MITRE
Adobe Flash Player before 18.0.0.352 and 19.x through 21.x before 21.0.0.242 on Windows and OS X and before 11.2.202.621 on Linux allows attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2016-1096, CVE-2016-1098, CVE-2016-1099, CVE-2016-1100, CVE-2016-1102, CVE-2016-1104, CVE-2016-4109, CVE-2016-4111, CVE-2016-4112, CVE-2016-4113, CVE-2016-4114, CVE-2016-4115, CVE-2016-4120, CVE-2016-4160, CVE-2016-4162, and CVE-2016-4163.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 10/17/2024
Adobe Flash Player versions prior to 18.0.0.352 and 19.x through 21.x before 21.0.0.242 on Windows and OS X platforms, as well as versions before 11.2.202.621 on Linux systems, contained a critical memory corruption vulnerability that enabled remote code execution and denial of service attacks. This vulnerability represents a distinct flaw from numerous other CVEs published in the same timeframe, indicating a complex attack surface within the Flash Player runtime environment. The unspecified vectors through which attackers could exploit this memory corruption issue demonstrate the sophisticated nature of the underlying flaw, likely involving improper memory handling during content processing or rendering operations. The vulnerability's classification as a memory corruption issue aligns with common attack patterns targeting browser plugins and multimedia frameworks where improper bounds checking or memory management can lead to exploitable conditions. Such flaws typically arise from insufficient input validation or buffer overflow conditions that allow attackers to manipulate memory layout and execute arbitrary code within the context of the Flash Player process.
The technical impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple code execution to include potential denial of service scenarios that could disrupt legitimate user sessions and system availability. Memory corruption vulnerabilities of this nature often provide attackers with opportunities to bypass security mitigations such as address space layout randomization and data execution prevention mechanisms. The exploitability characteristics suggest that attackers could leverage this vulnerability through malicious web content or specially crafted Flash files without requiring user interaction, making it particularly dangerous in targeted attack scenarios. The vulnerability's presence across multiple Flash Player versions indicates a systemic issue within the codebase rather than an isolated incident, potentially involving fundamental architectural flaws in how the player handles memory allocation and deallocation for multimedia content processing. Security researchers have noted that such memory corruption vulnerabilities often exhibit characteristics consistent with CWE-125, which describes out-of-bounds read conditions, and CWE-787, which covers out-of-bounds write conditions, both of which are common entry points for remote code execution attacks.
Organizations and users affected by this vulnerability should immediately implement mitigation strategies including disabling Flash Player functionality in web browsers, applying the latest security patches from Adobe, and implementing network-based controls to block Flash content delivery. The remediation process requires careful consideration of legacy applications that may depend on Flash Player functionality while ensuring that security exposures are minimized. System administrators should consider implementing application whitelisting policies that restrict Flash Player execution to trusted environments only, as well as deploying intrusion detection systems that can identify exploitation attempts targeting this specific vulnerability. The vulnerability's persistence across multiple major versions of Flash Player suggests that organizations should conduct comprehensive inventory assessments to identify all systems running vulnerable versions and prioritize patching activities accordingly. Security monitoring should focus on detecting anomalous behavior patterns that might indicate exploitation attempts, including unusual memory allocation patterns or process execution sequences that could indicate successful exploitation of the memory corruption vulnerability.