Skip to content

GHSA-9ghh-mmcq-8phc CVE-2023-22650 GO-2024-2931

Rancher does not automatically clean up a user deleted or disabled from the configured Authentication Provider

High Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.61%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.06% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-287 Improper Authentication
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-613 Insufficient Session Expiration
Fix
2.7.14
Upgrade github.com/rancher/rancher to this version or later

Description

Impact

A vulnerability has been identified in which Rancher does not automatically clean up a user which has been deleted from the configured authentication provider (AP). This characteristic also applies to disabled or revoked users, Rancher will not reflect these modifications which may leave the user’s tokens still usable.

An AP must be enabled to be affected by this, as the built-in User Management feature is not affected by this vulnerability. This issue may lead to an adversary gaining unauthorized access, as the user’s access privileges may still be active within Rancher even though they are no longer valid on the configured AP (please consult the MITRE ATT&CK - Technique - Valid Accounts for further information about the associated technique of attack).

It’s important to note that all configurable APs are impacted, see Rancher Docs - Configuring Authentication - External vs. Local Authentication to get the full authentication providers list.

To address this issue, the fix introduces a new user retention process that can be configured to run periodically and disable and/or delete inactive users. If enabled a user becomes subject to retention if they don't login for a configurable period of time. It's possible to set overrides for users that are used mainly for programmatic access (e.g. CI, scripts etc.) so that they don't become subject to retention for a longer period of time or at all. The user retention process is disabled by default, to avoid deleting wrong accounts. It is up to each user to enable it and configure the retention period as it best suits its environment.

Be aware that once the process is enabled, it might take a few days for previous users that have been revoked or deleted from the AP to be automatically removed from Rancher. To attenuate the risk of this condition, we recommend to regularly audit the AP’s user accounts for activity and manually deactivate or remove them from Rancher, if they are no longer needed.

For further information about the user retention process configuration, please refer to the dedicated documentation Rancher Docs - Advanced User Guides - Enable User Retention.

Patches

Patched versions include releases 2.7.14 and 2.8.5.

Workarounds

Administrators that are unable to update to a patched Rancher Manager version, are advised to delete Rancher users, via kubectl or through the UI, as soon as those users are deleted from the Authentication Provider. If a user needs to be temporarily disabled on the Authentication Provider, similar intervention will need to take place to reflect that change on Rancher Manager.

Below is a procedure to list and remove a deleted/disabled user in Rancher using kubectl (with a privileged kubeconfig).

  1. List all users bound to a supported external auth provider, then returns username, uid, displayName and PrincipalIds which contains the related authprovider_user://ID
#!/bin/bash

for authprovider in {activedirectory,azure,common,genericoidc,github googleauth, keycloakoidc,ldap,oidc,publicapi,saml}
do 
	kubectl get users -o json | jq --arg authprovider "$authprovider" '.items[] | select(.principalIds[] | test("^" + $authprovider + "_user://")) | {username: .metadata.name, uid: .metadata.uid, displayName: .displayName, principalIds: .principalIds}'
done
  1. Once the authprovider_user://ID (and/or DisplayName) is confirmed, remove the user from the Rancher UI or using kubectl delete users <USERNAME>.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/rancher/rancher
>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.14
2.7.14
github.com/rancher/rancher
>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.5
2.8.5
github.com/rancher/rancher
all versions
No fix yet

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 → 2.7.14

go
go get github.com/rancher/rancher@v2.7.14 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

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-287: Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

CWE-613: Insufficient Session Expiration

According to WASC, "Insufficient Session Expiration is when a web site permits an attacker to reuse old session credentials or session IDs for authorization."

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Set sessions/credentials expiration date.

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