yankeelucas/opensovixcve-2025-46285简单复现poc
CVE-2025-46285 Vulnerability Deep Analysis and Proof of Concept Important Disclaimer: The following content is intended solely for cybersecurity education, defensive research, and vulnerability principle analysis. Do not test or exploit this vulnerability in unauthorized environments. Exploiting system vulnerabilities may lead to legal consequences and device damage.
CVE-2025-46285 is an Integer Overflow vulnerability in Apple operating systems (including macOS, iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, watchOS, visionOS). The core issue lies in the handling of timestamps. Apple fixed this issue by introducing 64-bit timestamps.
int64_t or uint64_t) to support a longer time span and prevent overflow.In low-level languages like C/C++, integer overflow occurs when the result of an arithmetic operation exceeds the representable range of the data type.
According to the description, "An app may be able to gain root privileges." This is typically achieved through the following path:
launchd, kernel subsystem).Note: Since CVE-2025-46285 involves a kernel-level integer overflow and Apple has already fixed it, a direct POC that exploits the latest systems cannot be provided. The following code is educational simulation code intended to demonstrate the principle of 32-bit timestamp overflow and how to correctly fix the issue in code. This POC simulates a vulnerable timestamp handling function and demonstrates how overflow can cause logic errors.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
// Simulate the vulnerable system component
// Use 32-bit signed integer to store timestamp, which is the root cause of CVE-2025-46285
typedef struct {
int32_t timestamp; // Vulnerability point: using a 32-bit integer
int32_t duration; // Duration
int is_valid; // Validity flag
} TimeSensitiveData;
/**
* Vulnerable function: Calculate expiration time
* Problem: If current_time + duration exceeds INT32_MAX, overflow occurs
* Result: timestamp may become negative, causing security checks to fail
*/
int vulnerable_check_expiration(int32_t current_time, int32_t duration) {
int32_t expiration_time;
// Simulate integer overflow
// If current_time is close to INT32_MAX, adding duration will wrap around to negative
expiration_time = current_time + duration;
printf("[Vulnerable] Current Time: %d, Duration: %d\n", current_time, duration);
printf("[Vulnerable] Calculated Expiration: %d\n", expiration_time);
// Security check: if current time is greater than expiration time, it is invalid
// But if expiration_time becomes negative due to overflow while current_time is positive,
// then current_time > expiration_time always holds true, causing "expired" misjudgment
// Or in some logic, a negative time might be interpreted as "permanently valid" or bypass verification
if (current_time > expiration_time) {
return 0; // Expired
} else {
return 1; // Valid
}
}
/**
* Fixed function: Use 64-bit integer to handle timestamps
* Fix: Use 64-bit timestamps to prevent overflow
*/
int fixed_check_expiration(int64_t current_time, int64_t duration) {
int64_t expiration_time;
// Use 64-bit integer, extremely large range, almost impossible to overflow
expiration_time = current_time + duration;
printf("[Fixed] Current Time: %lld, Duration: %lld\n", current_time, duration);
printf("[Fixed] Calculated Expiration: %lld\n", expiration_time);
if (current_time > expiration_time) {
return 0; // Expired
} else {
return 1; // Valid
}
}
/**
* Simulate attack scenario
* Attacker constructs a timestamp close to INT32_MAX, adds a small duration,
* causing overflow to produce a negative number, thereby bypassing time-based security checks
*/
void demonstrate_attack() {
printf("\n=== Demonstrating Integer Overflow Attack ===\n");
// Set a time close to the maximum 32-bit integer value
// INT32_MAX = 2147483647
int32_t near_max_time = 2147483640;
int32_t small_duration = 10;
printf("Timestamp constructed by attacker: %d\n", near_max_time);
printf("Duration constructed by attacker: %d\n", small_duration);
int result_vuln = vulnerable_check_expiration(near_max_time, small_duration);
if (result_vuln == 1) {
printf("[!] Exploit successful: System incorrectly believes the data is still valid!\n");
printf("[!] Reason: 2147483640 + 10 = -2147483646 (overflow wrap-around)\n");
printf("[!] Current time (%d) is NOT greater than expiration time (-2147483646), so it returns valid.\n", near_max_time);
} else {
printf("[*] Exploit failed\n");
}
}
/**
* Demonstrate behavior after the fix
*/
void demonstrate_fix() {
printf("\n=== Demonstrating Behavior After the Fix ===\n");
int64_t near_max_time_64 = 2147483640;
int64_t small_duration_64 = 10;
int result_fixed = fixed_check_expiration(near_max_time_64, small_duration_64);
if (result_fixed == 1) {
printf("[+] Fix effective: System correctly identifies data as valid.\n");
printf("[+] Reason: 2147483640 + 10 = 2147483650 (no overflow)\n");
printf("[+] Current time (%lld) is NOT greater than expiration time (2147483650), so it returns valid.\n", near_max_time_64);
} else {
printf("[*] Data has expired\n");
}
}
int main() {
printf("CVE-2025-46285 Proof of Concept: Integer Overflow Leads to Timestamp Handling Error\n");
printf("======================================================================================\n");
// 1. Demonstrate attack
demonstrate_attack();
// 2. Demonstrate fix
demonstrate_fix();
printf("\n======================================================================================\n");
printf("Conclusion: Using 64-bit integers (int64_t) can completely avoid such overflow issues.\n");
printf("Apple has applied this fix in iOS 18.7.3, macOS 14.8.3 and other versions.\n");
return 0;
}
TimeSensitiveData struct simulates an object that stores timestamps in the system.int32_t timestamp is the root cause, limiting the time representation range.vulnerable_check_expiration:
expiration_time = current_time + duration; will overflow when current_time is close to INT32_MAX.2147483647 + 1 becomes -2147483648.current_time > expiration_time will result in an incorrect logic branch due to the negative value, potentially bypassing security policies.fixed_check_expiration:
int64_t.int64_t, uint64_t) to store timestamps.demonstrate_attack function:
expiration_time becomes negative.2147483640 > -2147483646 is true, the function returns 0 (expired). Note: In certain security logic, if the system expects "valid" to return non-zero, or if the logic is if (expiration_time < 0) return VALID;, the attacker can construct a "permanently valid" state. This example primarily demonstrates the numerical anomaly caused by overflow.demonstrate_fix function: