Skip to content

GHSA-6x34-89p7-95wg CVE-2022-31247

Rancher has downstream cluster privilege escalation through cluster and project role template binding (CRTB/PRTB)

Critical Go
Severity
9.1 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.00%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 62.82% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-285 Improper Authorization
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2.5.16
Upgrade github.com/rancher/rancher to this version or later

Description

Impact

An issue was discovered in Rancher versions up to and including 2.5.15 and 2.6.6 where a flaw with authorization logic allows privilege escalation through cluster role template binding (CRTB) and project role template binding (PRTB). This issue does not affect the local cluster, it affects only downstream clusters.

The vulnerability can be exploited by any user who has permissions to create/edit cluster role template bindings or project role template bindings (such as cluster-owner, manage cluster members, project-owner and manage project members) to gain owner permission in another project in the same cluster or in another project on a different downstream cluster.

  • The user must have kubectl access in the local cluster to exploit this scenario.

  • This can only be abused to gain cluster-owner permission on a different downstream cluster if the user is already cluster-owner on at least one downstream cluster.

  • Example of a modified CRTB (note: the clusterName points to the cluster ID of the cluster that the privileges will be escalated and namespace points to the current cluster ID that the user has permissions):

kubectl edit clusterroletemplatebindings crtb-<crtb-ID> -n c-<cluster-ID>
---
apiVersion: management.cattle.io/v3
clusterName: <ID-of-the-cluster-to-escalate>
kind: ClusterRoleTemplateBinding
metadata:
  annotations:
    <omitted> 
  finalizers:
  - <omitted> 
  generateName: crtb-
  labels:
    <omitted> 
    cattle.io/creator: norman
  name: crtb-<crtb-ID>
  namespace: c-<current-cluster-ID>
roleTemplateName: cluster-owner
userName: u-<user-ID>
userPrincipalName: local://u-<user-ID>

An artifact to flag the exploitation of this issue is that the namespace of the CRTB/PRTB will not match the cluster name (clusterName) of the CRTB/PRTB. For example, every CRTB in the c-123xyz namespace should have a cluster name of c-123xyz. If instead, the cluster name is c-abc567, for example, this is likely a result of a user exploiting this flaw.

For more information about cluster and project roles, please consult Rancher's documentation.

Patches

Patched versions include releases 2.5.16, 2.6.7 and later versions.

Workarounds

Limit access in Rancher to trusted users. There is not a direct mitigation besides upgrading to the patched Rancher versions.

Important:

  • It is highly advised to check the local and downstream clusters for potential unrecognized CRTBs (kubectl get clusterroletemplatebindings -A) and PRTBs (kubectl get projectroletemplatebindings -A) assignments.
  • The ability to add other users to projects and clusters is a highly-privileged permission which may result in users being able to operate beyond their explicitly specified RBAC. It is recommended that this permission be granted selectively.

The following script can be used as a helper to detect possible deviations of CRTBs and PRTBs that do not match the expected value. Further investigation is required to determine if the flagged objects were maliciously modified or not. The script requires kubectl access to the local cluster and the jq command.

#!/usr/bin/env bash

echo "CRTBs that don't match cluster:"
kubectl get clusterroletemplatebindings -A -o=jsonpath="{range .items[?(@.clusterName!=@.metadata.namespace)]}{.metadata.name}{'\n'}{end}"

echo "PRTBs that don't match project:"
kubectl get projectroletemplatebindings -A -ojson | jq -r '.items[]|.metadata as $m|select(.projectName|endswith($m.namespace)|not)|.metadata.name'

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/rancher/rancher
>= 2.5.0, < 2.5.16
2.5.16
github.com/rancher/rancher
>= 2.6.0, < 2.6.7
2.6.7

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/rancher/rancher Go → 2.5.16

go
go get github.com/rancher/rancher@v2.5.16 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 9.1

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

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

Weakness

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
  • 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-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-4j6x-2764-m8gh
Rancher has over-inclusive team membership expansion in GitHub App authentication provider
High Also affects github.com/rancher/rancher
GHSA-vx8h-4prv-g744
Rancher has Privilege Escalation from Project Owner to Host
High Also affects github.com/rancher/rancher
GHSA-mhc6-2gfq-xx62
Rancher vulnerable to command injection through unsanitized YAML parameter
Critical Also affects github.com/rancher/rancher
GHSA-5v3h-x4wf-5c35
Rancher Extensions have arbitrary file access via path traversal
High Also affects github.com/rancher/rancher
GHSA-gqf8-rvrh-g7w6
Rancher cloud credentials can be used through proxy API by users without access
Critical Also affects github.com/rancher/rancher
GHSA-hwm2-4ph6-w6m5
Rancher's restricted PodSecurityPolicy does not prevent containers from running as a privileged user
High Also affects github.com/rancher/rancher
GHSA-mc24-7m59-4q5p
Rancher CLI skips TLS verification on Rancher CLI login command
Medium Also affects github.com/rancher/rancher
GHSA-mw39-9qc2-f7mg
Rancher exposes sensitive information through audit logs
Medium Also affects github.com/rancher/rancher
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