ghsa-hrhx-6h34-j5hc
Vulnerability from github
Impact
People that configure mTLS between Traefik and clients.
For a request, the TLS configuration choice can be different than the router choice, which implies the use of a wrong TLS configuration.
-
When sending a request using FQDN handled by a router configured with a dedicated TLS configuration, the TLS configuration falls back to the default configuration that might not correspond to the configured one.
-
If the CNAME flattening is enabled, the selected TLS configuration is the SNI one and the routing uses the CNAME value, so this can skip the expected TLS configuration.
Patches
Traefik v2.6.x: https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v2.6.1
Workarounds
Add the FDQN to the host rule:
Example:
yml
whoami:
image: traefik/whoami:v1.7.1
labels:
traefik.http.routers.whoami.rule: Host(`whoami.example.com`, `whoami.example.com.`)
traefik.http.routers.whoami.tls: true
traefik.http.routers.whoami.tls.options: mtls@file
There is no workaround if the CNAME flattening is enabled.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please open an issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/traefik/traefik/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.6.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-23632"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-02-16T22:30:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-17T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nPeople that configure mTLS between Traefik and clients.\n\nFor a request, the TLS configuration choice can be different than the router choice, which implies the use of a wrong TLS configuration.\n\n- When sending a request using FQDN handled by a router configured with a dedicated TLS configuration, the TLS configuration falls back to the default configuration that might not correspond to the configured one.\n\n- If the CNAME flattening is enabled, the selected TLS configuration is the SNI one and the routing uses the CNAME value, so this can skip the expected TLS configuration.\n\n### Patches\n\nTraefik v2.6.x: https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v2.6.1\n\n### Workarounds\n\nAdd the FDQN to the host rule:\n\nExample:\n\n```yml\n whoami:\n image: traefik/whoami:v1.7.1\n labels:\n traefik.http.routers.whoami.rule: Host(`whoami.example.com`, `whoami.example.com.`)\n traefik.http.routers.whoami.tls: true\n traefik.http.routers.whoami.tls.options: mtls@file\n```\n\nThere is no workaround if the CNAME flattening is enabled.\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please [open an issue](https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues).\n",
"id": "GHSA-hrhx-6h34-j5hc",
"modified": "2022-02-16T22:30:57Z",
"published": "2022-02-16T22:30:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/traefik/traefik/security/advisories/GHSA-hrhx-6h34-j5hc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23632"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/traefik/traefik/pull/8764"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/traefik/traefik"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v2.6.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2022.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Skip the router TLS configuration when the host header is an FQDN"
}
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.