CVE-2022-0543
It was discovered, that redis, a persistent key-value database, due to a packaging issue, is prone to a (Debian-specific) Lua sandbox escape, which could…
Critical
Known exploited
- Severity
- 10.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 99.35%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.94% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Mar 28, 2022
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Debian-specific Redis Server Lua Sandbox Escape Vulnerability (Redis Debian-specific Redis Servers). Required action: Apply updates per vendor instructions. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Apr 18, 2022.
Description
It was discovered, that redis, a persistent key-value database, due to a packaging issue, is prone to a (Debian-specific) Lua sandbox escape, which could result in remote code execution.
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 10.0
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv russh: Agent server never calls `Agent::confirm`, so keys added with the confirm constraint (`ssh-add -c`) sign without confirmation | High | Same weakness, CWE-862 |
| GHSA-98mx-cjp9-gchm Electron: Extension tabs.query returns tab URLs and titles without the tabs permission | Low | Same weakness, CWE-862 |
| GHSA-vwwx-px9w-crrc ApostropheCMS: Missing Authorization on Notification PATCH/DELETE Endpoints | Low | Same weakness, CWE-862 |
| GHSA-vmxh-77cw-65j7 ApostropheCMS: Authenticated Object-Level Authorization Bypass in exist-in-locale Reveals Restricted Localized Draft Identifiers | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-862 |
| GHSA-gqh3-7856-rjjg ApostropheCMS: :_id/locales REST route omits the public-API authorization gate its sibling read routes enforce (unauthenticated doc-existence + locale metadata disclosure) | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-862 |
| GHSA-2jrp-qc93-h2j8 ApostropheCMS: Same-parent page reorder in @apostrophecms/page move() re-ranks a restricted parent's children without create authorization | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-862 |
| GHSA-5m22-7pfq-vp65 ApostropheCMS: Import API bypasses publication roles for protected content | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-862 |
| GHSA-vh56-5m88-39rq ApostropheCMS: GET /api/v1/@apostrophecms/page/:id bypasses viewRole restriction and exposes viewPermission-gated fields to lower-privileged users | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-862 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor