ghsa-xg58-75qf-9r67
Vulnerability from github
Published
2024-11-25 19:35
Modified
2024-12-04 16:22
Severity ?
5.8 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
6.9 (Medium) - CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N
Summary
Cilium's Layer 7 policy enforcement may not occur in policies with wildcarded port ranges
Details

Impact

For users with the following configuration:

then 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.

For reference, an example of a pair of policies that would trigger this issue is:

apiVersion: "cilium.io/v2" kind: CiliumNetworkPolicy metadata: name: "layer-3-and-4" spec: endpointSelector: matchLabels: app: service ingress: - fromCIDR: - 192.168.60.0/24 toPorts: - ports: - port: "80" endPort: 444 protocol: TCP and apiVersion: "cilium.io/v2" kind: CiliumNetworkPolicy metadata: name: "layer-4-and-7" spec: endpointSelector: matchLabels: app: service ingress: toPorts: - ports: - port: "80" protocol: TCP rules: http: - method: "GET" path: "/public"

In the above example, requests would be permitted to all HTTP paths on matching endpoints, rather than just GET requests to the /public path as intended by the layer-4-and-7 policy. In patched versions of Cilium, the layer-4-and-7 rule would take precedence over the layer-3-and-4 rule.

Patches

This issue is patched in https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/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.

Workarounds

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.

Acknowledgements

The Cilium community has worked together with members of Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @jrajahalme for resolving this issue.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on Slack.

If you think you have found a vulnerability affecting Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our security mailing list at security@cilium.io. This is a private mailing list for the Cilium security team, and your report will be treated as top priority.

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/cilium/cilium"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.16.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.16.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-52529"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-755",
      "CWE-862"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2024-11-25T19:35:10Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-11-25T19:15:11Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\nFor users with the following configuration:\n\n* An allow policy that selects a [Layer 3 identity](https://docs.cilium.io/en/v1.14/security/policy/language/#layer-3-examples) and a [port range](https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/security/policy/language/#example-port-ranges) **AND**\n* A [Layer 7 allow policy](https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/security/policy/language/#layer-7-examples) that selects a specific port within the first policy\u0027s range \n\nthen Layer 7 enforcement would not occur for the traffic selected by the Layer 7 policy.\n\nThis issue only affects users who use Cilium\u0027s port range functionality, which was introduced in Cilium v1.16.\n\nFor reference, an example of a pair of policies that would trigger this issue is:\n\n```\napiVersion: \"cilium.io/v2\"\nkind: CiliumNetworkPolicy\nmetadata:\n  name: \"layer-3-and-4\"\nspec:\n  endpointSelector:\n    matchLabels:\n      app: service\n  ingress:\n    - fromCIDR:\n      - 192.168.60.0/24\n      toPorts:\n      - ports:\n        - port: \"80\"\n          endPort: 444\n          protocol: TCP\n```\nand\n```\napiVersion: \"cilium.io/v2\"\nkind: CiliumNetworkPolicy\nmetadata:\n  name: \"layer-4-and-7\"\nspec:\n  endpointSelector:\n    matchLabels:\n      app: service\n  ingress:\n    toPorts:\n    - ports:\n      - port: \"80\"\n        protocol: TCP\n      rules:\n        http:\n        - method: \"GET\"\n          path: \"/public\"\n```\n\nIn the above example, requests would be permitted to all HTTP paths on matching endpoints, rather than just `GET` requests to the `/public` path as intended by the `layer-4-and-7` policy. In patched versions of Cilium, the `layer-4-and-7` rule would take precedence over the `layer-3-and-4` rule.\n\n### Patches\n\nThis issue is patched in https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150.\n\nThis issue affects Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.3 inclusive.\n\nThis issue is patched in Cilium v1.16.4.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nUsers 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.\n\n### Acknowledgements\nThe Cilium community has worked together with members of Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @jrajahalme for resolving this issue.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on [Slack](https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/community/community/#slack).\n\nIf you think you have found a vulnerability affecting Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our security mailing list at [security@cilium.io](mailto:security@cilium.io). This is a private mailing list for the Cilium security team, and your report will be treated as top priority.\n",
  "id": "GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67",
  "modified": "2024-12-04T16:22:27Z",
  "published": "2024-11-25T19:35:10Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52529"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Cilium\u0027s Layer 7 policy enforcement may not occur in policies with wildcarded port ranges"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




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.