Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-hr3v-8cp3-68rf BIT-consul-2021-41803 CVE-2021-41803 GO-2024-2683

HashiCorp Consul does not properly validate node or segment names prior to usage in JWT claim assertions

High Go
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.07%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 64.84% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
1.11.9
Upgrade github.com/hashicorp/consul to this version or later

Description

HashiCorp Consul 1.8.1 up to 1.11.8, 1.12.4, and 1.13.1 did not properly validate the node or segment names prior to interpolation and usage in JWT claim assertions with the auto config RPC. Fixed in 1.11.9, 1.12.5, and 1.13.2.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/hashicorp/consul
>= 1.8.1, < 1.11.9
1.11.9
github.com/hashicorp/consul
>= 1.12.0, < 1.12.5
1.12.5
github.com/hashicorp/consul
>= 1.13.0, < 1.13.2
1.13.2
github.com/hashicorp/consul
>= 1.8.1, < 1.11.9
>= 1.12.0, < 1.12.5
>= 1.13.0, < 1.13.2
1.11.9
1.12.5
1.13.2

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.

github.com/hashicorp/consul Go → 1.11.9

go
go get github.com/hashicorp/consul@v1.11.9 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

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

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform 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) [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

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-cpfq-66p2-336j
Consul is vulnerable to arbitrary file read when configured with Kubernetes authentication
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/consul
GHSA-qh7p-pfq3-677h
Consul event endpoint is vulnerable to denial of service
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/consul
GHSA-7g3r-8c6v-hfmr
Consul key/value endpoint is vulnerable to denial of service
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/consul
GHSA-99wr-c2px-grmh
Hashicorp Consul Cross-site Scripting vulnerability
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/consul
GHSA-5c4w-8hhh-3c3h
Hashicorp Consul Improper Neutralization of HTTP Headers for Scripting Syntax vulnerability
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/consul
GHSA-chgm-7r52-whjj
Hashicorp Consul Path Traversal vulnerability
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/consul
GHSA-6m72-467w-94rh
Privilege Escalation in HashiCorp Consul
Medium Also affects github.com/hashicorp/consul
GHSA-496g-fr33-whrf
Denial of service in HashiCorp Consul
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/consul

Credits: anonymous4ACL24

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