gsd-2022-21657
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:19
Details
Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy, designed for cloud-native applications. In affected versions Envoy does not restrict the set of certificates it accepts from the peer, either as a TLS client or a TLS server, to only those certificates that contain the necessary extendedKeyUsage (id-kp-serverAuth and id-kp-clientAuth, respectively). This means that a peer may present an e-mail certificate (e.g. id-kp-emailProtection), either as a leaf certificate or as a CA in the chain, and it will be accepted for TLS. This is particularly bad when combined with the issue described in pull request #630, in that it allows a Web PKI CA that is intended only for use with S/MIME, and thus exempted from audit or supervision, to issue TLS certificates that will be accepted by Envoy. As a result Envoy will trust upstream certificates that should not be trusted. There are no known workarounds to this issue. Users are advised to upgrade.
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2022-21657


To clipboard 

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2022-21657",
    "description": "Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy, designed for cloud-native applications. In affected versions Envoy does not restrict the set of certificates it accepts from the peer, either as a TLS client or a TLS server, to only those certificates that contain the necessary extendedKeyUsage (id-kp-serverAuth and id-kp-clientAuth, respectively). This means that a peer may present an e-mail certificate (e.g. id-kp-emailProtection), either as a leaf certificate or as a CA in the chain, and it will be accepted for TLS. This is particularly bad when combined with the issue described in pull request #630, in that it allows a Web PKI CA that is intended only for use with S/MIME, and thus exempted from audit or supervision, to issue TLS certificates that will be accepted by Envoy. As a result Envoy will trust upstream certificates that should not be trusted. There are no known workarounds to this issue. Users are advised to upgrade.",
    "id": "GSD-2022-21657",
    "references": [
      "https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2022-21657.html"
    ]
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2022-21657"
      ],
      "details": "Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy, designed for cloud-native applications. In affected versions Envoy does not restrict the set of certificates it accepts from the peer, either as a TLS client or a TLS server, to only those certificates that contain the necessary extendedKeyUsage (id-kp-serverAuth and id-kp-clientAuth, respectively). This means that a peer may present an e-mail certificate (e.g. id-kp-emailProtection), either as a leaf certificate or as a CA in the chain, and it will be accepted for TLS. This is particularly bad when combined with the issue described in pull request #630, in that it allows a Web PKI CA that is intended only for use with S/MIME, and thus exempted from audit or supervision, to issue TLS certificates that will be accepted by Envoy. As a result Envoy will trust upstream certificates that should not be trusted. There are no known workarounds to this issue. Users are advised to upgrade.",
      "id": "GSD-2022-21657",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:19:14.338748Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
        "ID": "CVE-2022-21657",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC",
        "TITLE": "X.509 Extended Key Usage and Trust Purposes bypass in Envoy"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "envoy",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "\u003e= 1.20.0, \u003c 1.20.2"
                        },
                        {
                          "version_value": "\u003e= 1.19.0, \u003c 1.19.3"
                        },
                        {
                          "version_value": "\u003c 1.18.6"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "envoyproxy"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy, designed for cloud-native applications. In affected versions Envoy does not restrict the set of certificates it accepts from the peer, either as a TLS client or a TLS server, to only those certificates that contain the necessary extendedKeyUsage (id-kp-serverAuth and id-kp-clientAuth, respectively). This means that a peer may present an e-mail certificate (e.g. id-kp-emailProtection), either as a leaf certificate or as a CA in the chain, and it will be accepted for TLS. This is particularly bad when combined with the issue described in pull request #630, in that it allows a Web PKI CA that is intended only for use with S/MIME, and thus exempted from audit or supervision, to issue TLS certificates that will be accepted by Envoy. As a result Envoy will trust upstream certificates that should not be trusted. There are no known workarounds to this issue. Users are advised to upgrade."
          }
        ]
      },
      "impact": {
        "cvss": {
          "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 6.8,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
          "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        }
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/security/advisories/GHSA-837m-wjrv-vm5g",
            "refsource": "CONFIRM",
            "url": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/security/advisories/GHSA-837m-wjrv-vm5g"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/pull/630",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/pull/630"
          }
        ]
      },
      "source": {
        "advisory": "GHSA-837m-wjrv-vm5g",
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:envoyproxy:envoy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndExcluding": "1.18.6",
                "vulnerable": true
              },
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:envoyproxy:envoy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndExcluding": "1.19.3",
                "versionStartIncluding": "1.19.0",
                "vulnerable": true
              },
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:envoyproxy:envoy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndExcluding": "1.20.2",
                "versionStartIncluding": "1.20.0",
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
          "ID": "CVE-2022-21657"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy, designed for cloud-native applications. In affected versions Envoy does not restrict the set of certificates it accepts from the peer, either as a TLS client or a TLS server, to only those certificates that contain the necessary extendedKeyUsage (id-kp-serverAuth and id-kp-clientAuth, respectively). This means that a peer may present an e-mail certificate (e.g. id-kp-emailProtection), either as a leaf certificate or as a CA in the chain, and it will be accepted for TLS. This is particularly bad when combined with the issue described in pull request #630, in that it allows a Web PKI CA that is intended only for use with S/MIME, and thus exempted from audit or supervision, to issue TLS certificates that will be accepted by Envoy. As a result Envoy will trust upstream certificates that should not be trusted. There are no known workarounds to this issue. Users are advised to upgrade."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-295"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/pull/630",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Patch",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/pull/630"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/security/advisories/GHSA-837m-wjrv-vm5g",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "tags": [
                "Issue Tracking",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/security/advisories/GHSA-837m-wjrv-vm5g"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV2": {
          "acInsufInfo": false,
          "cvssV2": {
            "accessComplexity": "LOW",
            "accessVector": "NETWORK",
            "authentication": "SINGLE",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 4.0,
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N",
            "version": "2.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 8.0,
          "impactScore": 2.9,
          "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
          "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
          "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
          "severity": "MEDIUM",
          "userInteractionRequired": false
        },
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 6.5,
            "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
          "impactScore": 3.6
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2022-03-07T15:25Z",
      "publishedDate": "2022-02-22T23:15Z"
    }
  }
}


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.