gsd-2020-11767
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:22
Details
Istio through 1.5.1 and Envoy through 1.14.1 have a data-leak issue. If there is a TCP connection (negotiated with SNI over HTTPS) to *.example.com, a request for a domain concurrently configured explicitly (e.g., abc.example.com) is sent to the server(s) listening behind *.example.com. The outcome should instead be 421 Misdirected Request. Imagine a shared caching forward proxy re-using an HTTP/2 connection for a large subnet with many users. If a victim is interacting with abc.example.com, and a server (for abc.example.com) recycles the TCP connection to the forward proxy, the victim's browser may suddenly start sending sensitive data to a *.example.com server. This occurs because the forward proxy between the victim and the origin server reuses connections (which obeys the specification), but neither Istio nor Envoy corrects this by sending a 421 error. Similarly, this behavior voids the security model browsers have put in place between domains.
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2020-11767


To clipboard 

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2020-11767",
    "description": "Istio through 1.5.1 and Envoy through 1.14.1 have a data-leak issue. If there is a TCP connection (negotiated with SNI over HTTPS) to *.example.com, a request for a domain concurrently configured explicitly (e.g., abc.example.com) is sent to the server(s) listening behind *.example.com. The outcome should instead be 421 Misdirected Request. Imagine a shared caching forward proxy re-using an HTTP/2 connection for a large subnet with many users. If a victim is interacting with abc.example.com, and a server (for abc.example.com) recycles the TCP connection to the forward proxy, the victim\u0027s browser may suddenly start sending sensitive data to a *.example.com server. This occurs because the forward proxy between the victim and the origin server reuses connections (which obeys the specification), but neither Istio nor Envoy corrects this by sending a 421 error. Similarly, this behavior voids the security model browsers have put in place between domains.",
    "id": "GSD-2020-11767"
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2020-11767"
      ],
      "details": "Istio through 1.5.1 and Envoy through 1.14.1 have a data-leak issue. If there is a TCP connection (negotiated with SNI over HTTPS) to *.example.com, a request for a domain concurrently configured explicitly (e.g., abc.example.com) is sent to the server(s) listening behind *.example.com. The outcome should instead be 421 Misdirected Request. Imagine a shared caching forward proxy re-using an HTTP/2 connection for a large subnet with many users. If a victim is interacting with abc.example.com, and a server (for abc.example.com) recycles the TCP connection to the forward proxy, the victim\u0027s browser may suddenly start sending sensitive data to a *.example.com server. This occurs because the forward proxy between the victim and the origin server reuses connections (which obeys the specification), but neither Istio nor Envoy corrects this by sending a 421 error. Similarly, this behavior voids the security model browsers have put in place between domains.",
      "id": "GSD-2020-11767",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:22:05.612774Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
        "ID": "CVE-2020-11767",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "n/a",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "n/a"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "Istio through 1.5.1 and Envoy through 1.14.1 have a data-leak issue. If there is a TCP connection (negotiated with SNI over HTTPS) to *.example.com, a request for a domain concurrently configured explicitly (e.g., abc.example.com) is sent to the server(s) listening behind *.example.com. The outcome should instead be 421 Misdirected Request. Imagine a shared caching forward proxy re-using an HTTP/2 connection for a large subnet with many users. If a victim is interacting with abc.example.com, and a server (for abc.example.com) recycles the TCP connection to the forward proxy, the victim\u0027s browser may suddenly start sending sensitive data to a *.example.com server. This occurs because the forward proxy between the victim and the origin server reuses connections (which obeys the specification), but neither Istio nor Envoy corrects this by sending a 421 error. Similarly, this behavior voids the security model browsers have put in place between domains."
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=954160#c5",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=954160#c5"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/issues/6767",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/issues/6767"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/9429",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/9429"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/13589",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/13589"
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "gitlab.com": {
      "advisories": [
        {
          "affected_range": "\u003c=v1.5.1",
          "affected_versions": "All versions up to 1.5.1",
          "cvss_v2": "AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N",
          "cvss_v3": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
          "cwe_ids": [
            "CWE-1035",
            "CWE-200",
            "CWE-937"
          ],
          "date": "2021-07-21",
          "description": "Istio has a data-leak issue. If there is a TCP connection (negotiated with SNI over HTTPS) to `*.example.com`, a request for a domain concurrently configured explicitly (e.g., `abc.example.com`) is sent to the server(s) listening behind `*.example.com`. The outcome should instead be Misdirected Request. Imagine a shared caching forward proxy re-using an HTTP/2 connection for a large subnet with many users.",
          "fixed_versions": [
            "v1.5.2"
          ],
          "identifier": "CVE-2020-11767",
          "identifiers": [
            "CVE-2020-11767"
          ],
          "not_impacted": "All versions starting from 1.5.1",
          "package_slug": "go/github.com/istio/istio",
          "pubdate": "2020-04-15",
          "solution": "Upgrade to version 1.5.2 or above.",
          "title": "Information Exposure",
          "urls": [
            "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-11767",
            "https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=954160#c5"
          ],
          "uuid": "adcf760f-666e-41b8-9721-4802ee5e0be0",
          "versions": [
            {
              "commit": {
                "sha": "ba37acf65d6ff64fe96f5e4acf559f5c45961688",
                "tags": [
                  "1.5.1"
                ],
                "timestamp": "20200323211801"
              },
              "number": "v1.5.1"
            },
            {
              "commit": {
                "sha": "3d78b915dea653bc76685c4583db1fde6b087095",
                "tags": [
                  "1.5.2"
                ],
                "timestamp": "20200421001938"
              },
              "number": "v1.5.2"
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:envoyproxy:envoy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndIncluding": "1.14.1",
                "vulnerable": true
              },
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:istio:istio:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndIncluding": "1.5.1",
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2020-11767"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "Istio through 1.5.1 and Envoy through 1.14.1 have a data-leak issue. If there is a TCP connection (negotiated with SNI over HTTPS) to *.example.com, a request for a domain concurrently configured explicitly (e.g., abc.example.com) is sent to the server(s) listening behind *.example.com. The outcome should instead be 421 Misdirected Request. Imagine a shared caching forward proxy re-using an HTTP/2 connection for a large subnet with many users. If a victim is interacting with abc.example.com, and a server (for abc.example.com) recycles the TCP connection to the forward proxy, the victim\u0027s browser may suddenly start sending sensitive data to a *.example.com server. This occurs because the forward proxy between the victim and the origin server reuses connections (which obeys the specification), but neither Istio nor Envoy corrects this by sending a 421 error. Similarly, this behavior voids the security model browsers have put in place between domains."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "NVD-CWE-noinfo"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/9429",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/9429"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=954160#c5",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Issue Tracking",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=954160#c5"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/13589",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Exploit",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/istio/istio/issues/13589"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/issues/6767",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/issues/6767"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV2": {
          "acInsufInfo": false,
          "cvssV2": {
            "accessComplexity": "HIGH",
            "accessVector": "NETWORK",
            "authentication": "NONE",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 2.6,
            "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N",
            "version": "2.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 4.9,
          "impactScore": 2.9,
          "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
          "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
          "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
          "severity": "LOW",
          "userInteractionRequired": true
        },
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 3.1,
            "baseSeverity": "LOW",
            "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 1.6,
          "impactScore": 1.4
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2021-07-21T11:39Z",
      "publishedDate": "2020-04-15T02:15Z"
    }
  }
}


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.