GHSA-7h8m-vrxx-vr4m CVE-2023-47111
ZITADEL race condition in lockout policy execution
- Severity
- 7.3 / 10
- Low · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.52%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 43.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-362 Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
- Fix
2.40.5- Upgrade github.com/zitadel/zitadel to this version or later
Description
Impact
ZITADEL provides administrators the possibility to define a Lockout Policy with a maximum amount of failed password check attempts. On every failed password check, the amount of failed checks is compared against the configured maximum.
Exceeding the limit, will lock the user and prevent further authentication.
In the affected implementation it was possible for an attacker to start multiple parallel password checks, giving him the possibility to try out more combinations than configured in the Lockout Policy.
Patches
2.x versions are fixed on >= 2.40.5 2.38.x versions are fixed on >= 2.38.3
Workarounds
There is no workaround since a patch is already available.
References
None
Questions
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please email us at security@zitadel.com
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/zitadel/zitadel | >= 2.39.0, < 2.40.5 |
2.40.5 |
| github.com/zitadel/zitadel | < 2.38.3 |
2.38.3 |
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/zitadel/zitadel Go → 2.40.5
- go
go get github.com/zitadel/zitadel@v2.40.5 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
- Architecture and Design: Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
- Architecture and Design: Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring. Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).
- Implementation: When using multithreading and operating on shared variables, only use thread-safe functions.
- Implementation: Use atomic operations on shared variables. Be wary of innocent-looking constructs such as "x++". This may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read, followed by a computation, followed by a write.
- Implementation: Use a mutex if available, but be sure to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-412.
- Implementation: Avoid double-checked locking (CWE-609) and other implementation errors that arise when trying to avoid the overhead of synchronization.
- Implementation: Disable interrupts or signals over critical parts of the code, but also make sure that the code does not go into a large or infinite loop.
- Implementation: Use the volatile type modifier for critical variables to avoid unexpected compiler optimization or reordering. This does not necessarily solve the synchronization problem, but it can help.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-fgmf-7rf8-m6vf ZITADEL: Actions V1 sandbox escape: host file read via require() | High | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-9993-rfwp-rhwf ZITADEL: MFA bypass via session reuse in Login V2 | High | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-v859-c572-qh5p ZITADEL: Improper Role Revocation on Granted Projects during Multiple Role Deletions | Medium | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-jq8w-8q2f-ffm9 ZITADEL Users Can Self-Verify Email/Phone via API | High | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-vrh8-c9cm-wh8v ZITADEL: Unauthorized Token Privilege Escalation in OAuth2 Token Exchange | High | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-992q-9gwp-7r79 ZITADEL: Auto-linking by email: IdP-side email verification is not checked | Medium | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-v77h-2w3m-94hx ZITADEL: Missing Token Expiration (`exp`) Validation in JWT IdP Provider | Medium | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-g5h5-m4hm-xjrr ZITADEL: Missing Token Audience Validation (`aud`) in JWT IdP Provider | Medium | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
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