GSD-2021-40088

Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:23
Details
An issue was discovered in PrimeKey EJBCA before 7.6.0. CMP RA Mode can be configured to use a known client certificate to authenticate enrolling clients. The same RA client certificate is used for revocation requests as well. While enrollment enforces multi tenancy constraints (by verifying that the client certificate has access to the CA and Profiles being enrolled against), this check was not performed when authenticating revocation operations, allowing a known tenant to revoke a certificate belonging to another tenant.
Aliases
Aliases

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2021-40088",
    "description": "An issue was discovered in PrimeKey EJBCA before 7.6.0. CMP RA Mode can be configured to use a known client certificate to authenticate enrolling clients. The same RA client certificate is used for revocation requests as well. While enrollment enforces multi tenancy constraints (by verifying that the client certificate has access to the CA and Profiles being enrolled against), this check was not performed when authenticating revocation operations, allowing a known tenant to revoke a certificate belonging to another tenant.",
    "id": "GSD-2021-40088"
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2021-40088"
      ],
      "details": "An issue was discovered in PrimeKey EJBCA before 7.6.0. CMP RA Mode can be configured to use a known client certificate to authenticate enrolling clients. The same RA client certificate is used for revocation requests as well. While enrollment enforces multi tenancy constraints (by verifying that the client certificate has access to the CA and Profiles being enrolled against), this check was not performed when authenticating revocation operations, allowing a known tenant to revoke a certificate belonging to another tenant.",
      "id": "GSD-2021-40088",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:23:25.492841Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
        "ID": "CVE-2021-40088",
        "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": "An issue was discovered in PrimeKey EJBCA before 7.6.0. CMP RA Mode can be configured to use a known client certificate to authenticate enrolling clients. The same RA client certificate is used for revocation requests as well. While enrollment enforces multi tenancy constraints (by verifying that the client certificate has access to the CA and Profiles being enrolled against), this check was not performed when authenticating revocation operations, allowing a known tenant to revoke a certificate belonging to another tenant."
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://support.primekey.com/news/posts/51",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://support.primekey.com/news/posts/51"
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:primekey:ejbca:*:*:*:*:enterprise:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndExcluding": "7.6.0",
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2021-40088"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "An issue was discovered in PrimeKey EJBCA before 7.6.0. CMP RA Mode can be configured to use a known client certificate to authenticate enrolling clients. The same RA client certificate is used for revocation requests as well. While enrollment enforces multi tenancy constraints (by verifying that the client certificate has access to the CA and Profiles being enrolled against), this check was not performed when authenticating revocation operations, allowing a known tenant to revoke a certificate belonging to another tenant."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-862"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://support.primekey.com/news/posts/51",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Vendor Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://support.primekey.com/news/posts/51"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV2": {
          "acInsufInfo": false,
          "cvssV2": {
            "accessComplexity": "MEDIUM",
            "accessVector": "NETWORK",
            "authentication": "SINGLE",
            "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "baseScore": 4.9,
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P",
            "version": "2.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 6.8,
          "impactScore": 4.9,
          "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
          "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
          "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
          "severity": "MEDIUM",
          "userInteractionRequired": false
        },
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "LOW",
            "baseScore": 5.4,
            "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "LOW",
            "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
          "impactScore": 2.5
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2021-09-07T14:17Z",
      "publishedDate": "2021-08-25T02:15Z"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…