GHSA-4wjj-jwc9-2x96 CVE-2022-2989

Podman's incorrect handling of the supplementary groups may lead to data disclosure, modification

High Go

Severity: 7.1 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.32%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.29% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-842 Placement of User into Incorrect Group; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: Available; 2 packages have a fixed version

Description

An incorrect handling of the supplementary groups in the Podman container engine might lead to the sensitive information disclosure or possible data modification if an attacker has direct access to the affected container where supplementary groups are used to set access permissions and is able to execute a binary code in that container.

Affected versions

Go

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
github.com/containers/podman/v3	`< 3.0.1`	`3.0.1`
github.com/containers/podman/v4	`< 4.2.0`	`4.2.0`

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/containers/podman/v3 Go → `3.0.1`

go

go get github.com/containers/podman/v3@v3.0.1 && go mod tidy

github.com/containers/podman/v4 Go → `4.2.0`

go

go get github.com/containers/podman/v4@v4.2.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

Attack vector: Local
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Weakness

CWE-842: Placement of User into Incorrect Group

The product or the administrator places a user into an incorrect group.

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

Advisories

Packages

github.com/containers/podman

Timeline

Sep 13, 2022 Published
Jun 17, 2026 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-hmfx-3pcx-653p Supplementary groups are not set up properly in github.com/containerd/containerd	High	Linked by the source
GHSA-fjm8-m7m6-2fjp Buildah's incorrect handling of the supplementary groups may lead to data disclosure, modification	High	Linked by the source

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