Code execution, sure, paint has been used to write executable code too, so why not.
But remote? How
"An unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted packet to an affected service over the network. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute code on the target system. No authentication or user interaction is required.."
Still, the question remains... How?
It mentions that it may rely on other services or security measures running- I wonder if there’s something like this hitting a firewall or av and then that calling out to paint to check file type or size out something like that?
loading story #50386571
loading story #50384602
loading story #50384665
I'm thankfully out of the loop on Windows these days, but as I remember it Paint did not have any network features? Is that still true? If if is, maybe it is a misfiling of the CVE and it isn't remote?
Or are they chaining a browser auto opening a download in paint, (but browsers shouldn't do that)...
loading story #50387214
loading story #50384643
I wonder if it could be through a file:// or some deeplink custom url handler that opens in Paint and clicking on it with some carefully crafted file path could make it read out of bounds (since that's the associated weakness reported) and execute something.
loading story #50386248
Maybe because a .bmp file could be sent remotely.
Or maybe after the .bmp file is executed, it can install something that opens an outbound TCP connection to its C2, and thus can receive commands. Would not need admin privileges because it doesn't open a port, just 'outbound' connections, like a long-poll.
loading story #50386376
Because the definition of "remote" has been expanded in the name of resume-driven development to include sending a malicious file that a victim has to open.