GHSA-fpxm-fprw-6hxj CVE-2022-22967 PYSEC-2022-210
Salt's PAM auth fails to reject locked accounts
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 2.06%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 81.35% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
3002.9- Upgrade salt to this version or later
Description
An issue was discovered in SaltStack Salt in versions before 3002.9, 3003.5, 3004.2. PAM auth fails to reject locked accounts, which allows a previously authorized user whose account is locked still run Salt commands when their account is locked. This affects both local shell accounts with an active session and salt-api users that authenticate via PAM eauth.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| salt | < 3002.9 |
3002.9 |
| salt | >= 3003.0, < 3003.5 |
3003.5 |
| salt | >= 3004.0, < 3004.2 |
3004.2 |
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.
salt PyPI → 3002.9
- pip
pip install --upgrade "salt>=3002.9"- poetry
poetry add "salt>=3002.9"- uv
uv add "salt>=3002.9"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- 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 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-16846 SaltStack Salt Command Injection in netapi ssh client | Critical Known exploited | Also affects salt |
| CVE-2020-11652 SaltStack Salt is vulnerable Arbitrary Directory Access | High Known exploited | Also affects salt |
| CVE-2020-11651 SaltStack Salt Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution | Critical Known exploited | Also affects salt |
| GHSA-vcf3-26xf-fw4m Salt Authentication Protocol Version Downgrade Allows Minion Impersonation | Medium | Also affects salt |
| GHSA-77w2-v593-vxvv Salt junos Module Vulnerable to Code Injection via Specially Crafted YAML Payload | High | Also affects salt |
| GHSA-8pcp-r83j-fc92 Salt vulnerable to directory traversal attack in file receiving method | High | Also affects salt |
| GHSA-989c-m532-p2hv Salt's worker process vulnerable to denial of service through file read operation | Medium | Also affects salt |
| GHSA-7f3f-x5f5-79gw Salt's file contents overwrite the VirtKey class | Medium | Also affects salt |
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