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
{
"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"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
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.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- 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.
Loading…
Loading…