Skip to content

GHSA-2w5v-x29g-jw7j CVE-2024-10975 GO-2024-3262

Hashicorp Nomad Incorrect Authorization vulnerability

High Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.45%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.10% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
1.9.2
Upgrade github.com/hashicorp/nomad to this version or later

Description

Nomad Community and Nomad Enterprise ("Nomad") volume specification is vulnerable to arbitrary cross-namespace volume creation through unauthorized Container Storage Interface (CSI) volume writes. This vulnerability, identified as CVE-2024-10975, is fixed in Nomad Community Edition 1.9.2 and Nomad Enterprise 1.9.2, 1.8.7, and 1.7.15.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/hashicorp/nomad
<= 1.9.1
No fix yet
github.com/hashicorp/nomad
< 1.9.2
1.9.2

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

github.com/hashicorp/nomad Go → 1.9.2

go
go get github.com/hashicorp/nomad@v1.9.2 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 7.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-hx53-77qj-8663
HashiCorp Nomad vulnerable to a path traversal
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/nomad
GHSA-3934-423w-4jq3
HashiCorp Nomad vulnerable to symlink attack
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/nomad
GHSA-rx97-6c62-55mf
Hashicorp Nomad Incorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/nomad
GHSA-c3q9-q986-vrwh
Nomad is vulnerable to unintentional exposure of the workload identity token and client secret token in audit logs
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/nomad
GHSA-hr68-hvgv-xxqf
Hashicorp Nomad Incorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/nomad
GHSA-25qx-vfw2-fw8r
Nomad Vulnerable to Allocation Directory Escape On Non-Existing File Paths Through Archive Unpacking
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/nomad
GHSA-5mqx-rpxv-mvxj
HashiCorp Nomad is vulnerable to path escape through archive unpacking during migration
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/nomad
GHSA-c866-8gpw-p3mv
HashiCorp Nomad vulnerable to symlink attacks
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/nomad
Is this in your code?

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