Skip to content

GHSA-hwc3-3qh6-r4gg BIT-vault-2023-0665 CVE-2023-0665 GO-2023-1708

HashiCorp Vault's PKI mount vulnerable to denial of service

Medium Go
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.43% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-285 Improper Authorization
Fix
1.11.9
Upgrade github.com/hashicorp/vault to this version or later

Description

HashiCorp Vault's PKI mount issuer endpoints did not correctly authorize access to remove an issuer or modify issuer metadata, potentially resulting in denial of service of the PKI mount. This bug did not affect public or private key material, trust chains or certificate issuance. Fixed in Vault 1.13.1, 1.12.5, and 1.11.9.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/hashicorp/vault
< 1.11.9
1.11.9
github.com/hashicorp/vault
>= 1.12.0, < 1.12.5
1.12.5
github.com/hashicorp/vault
>= 1.13.0, < 1.13.1
1.13.1
github.com/hashicorp/vault
< 1.11.9
>= 1.12.0, < 1.12.5
>= 1.13.0, < 1.13.1
1.11.9
1.12.5
1.13.1

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/vault Go → 1.11.9

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

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
  • 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-88v5-9hxc-f85r
HashiCorp Vault Vulnerable to Denial-of-Service via Unauthenticated Root Token Generation/Rekey Operations
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault
GHSA-8r5m-3f66-qpr3
HashiCorp Vault has Server-Side Request Forgery in ACME Challenge Validation via Attacker-Controlled DNS
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault
GHSA-72gw-fmmr-c4r4
HashiCorp Vault May Expose Tokens to Auth Plugins Due to Incorrect Header Sanitization
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault
GHSA-m2w4-8ggf-rj47
HashiCorp Vault has a KVv2 Metadata and Secret Deletion Policy Bypass that leads to Denial-of-Service
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault
GHSA-vp5w-xcfc-73wf
Hashicorp Vault and Vault Enterprise vulnerable to a denial of service when processing JSON
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault
GHSA-9g4h-h484-3578
HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise's AWS Auth method may be susceptible to authentication bypass
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault
GHSA-8f82-53h8-2p34
HashiCorp Vault Community Edition Denial of Service Though Complex JSON Payloads
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault
GHSA-7rx2-769v-hrwf
HashiCorp Vault ldap auth method may not have correctly enforced MFA
High Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault
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