Skip to content

GHSA-8vhc-hwhc-cpj4 CVE-2020-10676

Rancher users retain access after moving namespaces into projects they don't have access to

High Go
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.03%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 63.63% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2.6.13
Upgrade github.com/rancher/rancher to this version or later

Description

Impact

A vulnerability was identified in which users with update privileges on a namespace, can move that namespace into a project they don't have access to. After the namespace transfer is completed, their previous permissions are still preserved, which enables them to gain access to project-specific resources (such as project secrets). In addition, resources in the namespace will now count toward the quota limit of the new project, potentially causing availability issues.

User with roles Project Owner and Project Member on the source project can exploit this vulnerability; however, this would also apply to custom roles with similar privileges.

The patched version include an improved RBAC mechanism, which checks if the user has the correct permissions before the namespace move takes place.

Patches

Patched versions include releases 2.6.13, 2.7.4 and later versions.

Workarounds

There is no direct mitigation besides updating Rancher to a patched version.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/rancher/rancher
>= 2.6.0, < 2.6.13
2.6.13
github.com/rancher/rancher
>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.4
2.7.4

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 → 2.6.13

go
go get github.com/rancher/rancher@v2.6.13 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

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-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