cve-2024-52529
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2024-11-25 18:49
Modified
2024-11-26 14:28
Severity ?
5.8 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Summary
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. For users with the following configuration: 1. An allow policy that selects a Layer 3 destination and a port range `AND` 2. A Layer 7 allow policy that selects a specific port within the first policy's range the Layer 7 enforcement would not occur for the traffic selected by the Layer 7 policy. This issue only affects users who use Cilium's port range functionality, which was introduced in Cilium v1.16. This issue is patched in PR #35150. This issue affects Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.3 inclusive. This issue is patched in Cilium v1.16.4. Users are advised to upgrade. Users with network policies that match the pattern described above can work around the issue by rewriting any policies that use port ranges to individually specify the ports permitted for traffic.
References
security-advisories@github.comhttps://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150
security-advisories@github.comhttps://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
cilium cilium Version: >= 1.16.0, < 1.16.4
 Create a notification for this product.
Show details on NVD website

To clipboard 

{
   containers: {
      adp: [
         {
            affected: [
               {
                  cpes: [
                     "cpe:2.3:a:cilium:cilium:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                  ],
                  defaultStatus: "unknown",
                  product: "cilium",
                  vendor: "cilium",
                  versions: [
                     {
                        lessThan: "1.16.4",
                        status: "affected",
                        version: "1.16.0",
                        versionType: "custom",
                     },
                  ],
               },
            ],
            metrics: [
               {
                  other: {
                     content: {
                        id: "CVE-2024-52529",
                        options: [
                           {
                              Exploitation: "none",
                           },
                           {
                              Automatable: "yes",
                           },
                           {
                              "Technical Impact": "partial",
                           },
                        ],
                        role: "CISA Coordinator",
                        timestamp: "2024-11-26T14:27:46.184253Z",
                        version: "2.0.3",
                     },
                     type: "ssvc",
                  },
               },
            ],
            providerMetadata: {
               dateUpdated: "2024-11-26T14:28:59.941Z",
               orgId: "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
               shortName: "CISA-ADP",
            },
            title: "CISA ADP Vulnrichment",
         },
      ],
      cna: {
         affected: [
            {
               product: "cilium",
               vendor: "cilium",
               versions: [
                  {
                     status: "affected",
                     version: ">= 1.16.0, < 1.16.4",
                  },
               ],
            },
         ],
         descriptions: [
            {
               lang: "en",
               value: "Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. For users with the following configuration: 1. An allow policy that selects a Layer 3 destination and a port range `AND` 2. A Layer 7 allow policy that selects a specific port within the first policy's range the Layer 7 enforcement would not occur for the traffic selected by the Layer 7 policy. This issue only affects users who use Cilium's port range functionality, which was introduced in Cilium v1.16. This issue is patched in PR #35150. This issue affects Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.3 inclusive. This issue is patched in Cilium v1.16.4. Users are advised to upgrade. Users with network policies that match the pattern described above can work around the issue by rewriting any policies that use port ranges to individually specify the ports permitted for traffic.",
            },
         ],
         metrics: [
            {
               cvssV3_1: {
                  attackComplexity: "LOW",
                  attackVector: "NETWORK",
                  availabilityImpact: "NONE",
                  baseScore: 5.8,
                  baseSeverity: "MEDIUM",
                  confidentialityImpact: "LOW",
                  integrityImpact: "NONE",
                  privilegesRequired: "NONE",
                  scope: "CHANGED",
                  userInteraction: "NONE",
                  vectorString: "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
                  version: "3.1",
               },
            },
         ],
         problemTypes: [
            {
               descriptions: [
                  {
                     cweId: "CWE-755",
                     description: "CWE-755: Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions",
                     lang: "en",
                     type: "CWE",
                  },
               ],
            },
         ],
         providerMetadata: {
            dateUpdated: "2024-11-25T18:49:15.616Z",
            orgId: "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
            shortName: "GitHub_M",
         },
         references: [
            {
               name: "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67",
               tags: [
                  "x_refsource_CONFIRM",
               ],
               url: "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67",
            },
            {
               name: "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150",
               tags: [
                  "x_refsource_MISC",
               ],
               url: "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150",
            },
         ],
         source: {
            advisory: "GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67",
            discovery: "UNKNOWN",
         },
         title: "Layer 7 policy enforcement may not occur in policies with wildcarded port ranges in Cilium",
      },
   },
   cveMetadata: {
      assignerOrgId: "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
      assignerShortName: "GitHub_M",
      cveId: "CVE-2024-52529",
      datePublished: "2024-11-25T18:49:15.616Z",
      dateReserved: "2024-11-11T18:49:23.561Z",
      dateUpdated: "2024-11-26T14:28:59.941Z",
      state: "PUBLISHED",
   },
   dataType: "CVE_RECORD",
   dataVersion: "5.1",
   "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
      nvd: "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2024-52529\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"security-advisories@github.com\",\"published\":\"2024-11-25T19:15:11.373\",\"lastModified\":\"2024-11-25T19:15:11.373\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Awaiting Analysis\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. For users with the following configuration: 1. An allow policy that selects a Layer 3 destination and a port range `AND` 2. A Layer 7 allow policy that selects a specific port within the first policy's range the Layer 7 enforcement would not occur for the traffic selected by the Layer 7 policy. This issue only affects users who use Cilium's port range functionality, which was introduced in Cilium v1.16. This issue is patched in PR #35150. This issue affects Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.3 inclusive. This issue is patched in Cilium v1.16.4. Users are advised to upgrade. Users with network policies that match the pattern described above can work around the issue by rewriting any policies that use port ranges to individually specify the ports permitted for traffic.\"},{\"lang\":\"es\",\"value\":\"Cilium es una solución de redes, observabilidad y seguridad con un plano de datos basado en eBPF. Para los usuarios con la siguiente configuración: 1. Una política de permiso que selecciona un destino de Capa 3 y un rango de puertos `AND` 2. Una política de permiso de Capa 7 que selecciona un puerto específico dentro del rango de la primera política, la aplicación de Capa 7 no se produciría para el tráfico seleccionado por la política de Capa 7. Este problema solo afecta a los usuarios que utilizan la funcionalidad de rango de puertos de Cilium, que se introdujo en Cilium v1.16. Este problema está corregido en PR #35150. Este problema afecta a Cilium v1.16 entre v1.16.0 y v1.16.3 inclusive. Este problema está corregido en Cilium v1.16.4. Se recomienda a los usuarios que actualicen. Los usuarios con políticas de red que coincidan con el patrón descrito anteriormente pueden solucionar el problema reescribiendo cualquier política que utilice rangos de puertos para especificar individualmente los puertos permitidos para el tráfico.\"}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"security-advisories@github.com\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N\",\"baseScore\":5.8,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"scope\":\"CHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"integrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"NONE\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":3.9,\"impactScore\":1.4}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"security-advisories@github.com\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-755\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150\",\"source\":\"security-advisories@github.com\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67\",\"source\":\"security-advisories@github.com\"}]}}",
      vulnrichment: {
         containers: "{\"cna\": {\"title\": \"Layer 7 policy enforcement may not occur in policies with wildcarded port ranges in Cilium\", \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"cweId\": \"CWE-755\", \"lang\": \"en\", \"description\": \"CWE-755: Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions\", \"type\": \"CWE\"}]}], \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"baseScore\": 5.8, \"baseSeverity\": \"MEDIUM\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"LOW\", \"integrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"scope\": \"CHANGED\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N\", \"version\": \"3.1\"}}], \"references\": [{\"name\": \"https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67\", \"tags\": [\"x_refsource_CONFIRM\"], \"url\": \"https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67\"}, {\"name\": \"https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150\", \"tags\": [\"x_refsource_MISC\"], \"url\": \"https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150\"}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"cilium\", \"product\": \"cilium\", \"versions\": [{\"version\": \">= 1.16.0, < 1.16.4\", \"status\": \"affected\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa\", \"shortName\": \"GitHub_M\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-11-25T18:49:15.616Z\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. For users with the following configuration: 1. An allow policy that selects a Layer 3 destination and a port range `AND` 2. A Layer 7 allow policy that selects a specific port within the first policy's range the Layer 7 enforcement would not occur for the traffic selected by the Layer 7 policy. This issue only affects users who use Cilium's port range functionality, which was introduced in Cilium v1.16. This issue is patched in PR #35150. This issue affects Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.3 inclusive. This issue is patched in Cilium v1.16.4. Users are advised to upgrade. Users with network policies that match the pattern described above can work around the issue by rewriting any policies that use port ranges to individually specify the ports permitted for traffic.\"}], \"source\": {\"advisory\": \"GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67\", \"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}}, \"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2024-52529\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"yes\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2024-11-26T14:27:46.184253Z\"}}}], \"affected\": [{\"cpes\": [\"cpe:2.3:a:cilium:cilium:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\"], \"vendor\": \"cilium\", \"product\": \"cilium\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"1.16.0\", \"lessThan\": \"1.16.4\", \"versionType\": \"custom\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unknown\"}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-11-26T14:28:52.950Z\"}}]}",
         cveMetadata: "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2024-52529\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"assignerShortName\": \"GitHub_M\", \"dateReserved\": \"2024-11-11T18:49:23.561Z\", \"datePublished\": \"2024-11-25T18:49:15.616Z\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-11-26T14:28:59.941Z\"}",
         dataType: "CVE_RECORD",
         dataVersion: "5.1",
      },
   },
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.

Security Advisory comment format.

This schema specifies the format of a comment related to a security advisory.

UUIDv4 of the comment
UUIDv4 of the Vulnerability-Lookup instance
When the comment was created originally
When the comment was last updated
Title of the comment
Description of the comment
The identifier of the vulnerability (CVE ID, GHSA-ID, PYSEC ID, etc.).



Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.