GHSA-jhqp-vf4w-rpwq CVE-2022-31016 GO-2022-0495
DoS through large manifest files in Argo CD
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.90%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 59.70% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Impact
All versions of Argo CD starting with v0.7.0 are vulnerable to an uncontrolled memory consumption bug, allowing an authorized malicious user to crash the repo-server service. The repo-server is a critical component of Argo CD, so crashing the repo-server effectively denies core Argo CD services (such as syncing Application updates).
To achieve denial of service, the attacker must be an authenticated Argo CD user authorized to deploy Applications from a repository which contains (or can be made to contain) a large file.
Patches
A patch for this vulnerability has been released in the following Argo CD versions:
- v2.4.1
- v2.3.5
- v2.2.10
- v2.1.16
The patch introduces a new reposerver.max.combined.directory.manifests.size config parameter, which you should tune before upgrading in production. It caps the maximum total file size of .yaml/.yml/.json files in directory-type (raw manifest) Applications. The default max is 10M per Application. This max is designed to keep any single app from consuming more than 3G of memory in the repo-server (manifests consume more space in memory than on disk). The 300x ratio assumes a maliciously-crafted manifest file. If you only want to protect against accidental excessive memory use, it is probably safe to use a smaller ratio.
If your organization uses directory-type Applications with very many manifests or very large manifests then check the size of those manifests and tune the config parameter before deploying this change to production. When testing, make sure to do a "hard refresh" in either the CLI or UI to test your directory-type App. That will make sure you're using the new max logic instead of relying on cached manifest responses from Redis.
Workarounds
There is no workaround besides upgrading.
To mitigate the issue, carefully limit 1) who can configure repos (determined by RBAC), 2) which repos are allowed (determined by Project limitations), and 3) who has push access to those repos (determined by your SCM provider configuration).
Credits
Disclosed by ADA Logics in a security audit of the Argo project sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF. Thanks to Adam Korczynski and David Korczynski for their work on the audit.
For more information
- Open an issue in the Argo CD issue tracker or discussions
- Join us on Slack in channel #argo-cd
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/argoproj/argo-cd | >= 0.7.0, < 2.1.16 |
2.1.16 |
| github.com/argoproj/argo-cd | >= 0.7.0 |
No fix yet |
| github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2 | < 2.1.16 |
2.1.16 |
| github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2 | >= 2.2.0, < 2.2.10 |
2.2.10 |
| github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2 | >= 2.3.0, < 2.3.5 |
2.3.5 |
| github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2 | >= 2.4.0, < 2.4.1 |
2.4.1 |
| github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2 | < 2.1.16>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.10>= 2.3.0, < 2.3.5>= 2.4.0, < 2.4.1 |
2.1.162.2.102.3.52.4.1 |
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/argoproj/argo-cd Go → 2.1.16
- go
go get github.com/argoproj/argo-cd@v2.1.16 && go mod tidy
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2 Go → 2.1.16
- go
go get github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2@v2.1.16 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
- Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- 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: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
- Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-fmxq-cgp8-87wp Argo CD: AppProject destination-namespace and resource restrictions bypassed by PreDelete/PostDelete resource hooks | Critical | Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd |
| GHSA-j6cw-g6p4-7hch Argo CD repo-server command injection via crafted SSH repository SOCKS5 proxy URL | High | Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd |
| GHSA-h98r-wv3h-fr38 Argo CD: Stored XSS in application link annotations enables developer-to-admin privilege escalation | High | Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd |
| GO-2026-5618 Argo CD: Kubernetes Secret Extraction via ArgoCD ServerSideDiff via sensitive annotations | Medium | Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd |
| GO-2026-5099 ArgoCD ServerSideDiff is vulnerable to Kubernetes Secret Extraction | Critical | Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd |
| GHSA-gpx4-37g2-c8pv Argo CD Unauthenticated Remote DoS via malformed Azure DevOps git.push webhook | High | Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd |
| GHSA-wp4p-9pxh-cgx2 argo-cd vulnerable unauthenticated DoS via malformed Gogs webhook payload | High | Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd |
| GHSA-f9gq-prrc-hrhc Unauthenticated argocd-server panic via a malicious Bitbucket-Server webhook payload | High | Also affects github.com/argoproj/argo-cd |
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