GHSA-p258-xmh3-72pv CVE-2014-0167 PYSEC-2026-878
OpenStack Compute (Nova) allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges via API requests
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.65%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 76.57% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-862 Missing Authorization
- Fix
2013.2.4- Upgrade nova to this version or later
Description
The Nova EC2 API security group implementation in OpenStack Compute (Nova) 2013.1 before 2013.2.4 and icehouse before icehouse-rc2 does not enforce RBAC policies for (1) add_rules, (2) remove_rules, (3) destroy, and other unspecified methods in compute/api.py when using non-default policies, which allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges via these API requests.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| nova | >= 2013.1.0, < 2013.2.4 |
2013.2.4 |
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.
nova PyPI → 2013.2.4
- pip
pip install --upgrade "nova>=2013.2.4"- poetry
poetry add "nova>=2013.2.4"- uv
uv add "nova>=2013.2.4"
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/E:U
- 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
- Exploit maturity
- Unreported
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
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mfg3-p6m3-gjgr OpenStack Nova: Nova scheduler hint injection bypasses Placement resource claims and scheduling constraints | High | Also affects nova |
| GHSA-m4f3-qp2w-gwh6 OpenStack Nova calls qemu-img without format restrictions for resize | High | Also affects nova |
| GHSA-rm86-h44c-2r2m OpenStack Nova vulnerable to unauthorized access to potentially sensitive data | Medium | Also affects nova |
| GHSA-r4v4-w9pv-6fph OpenStack Cinder, Glance, and Nova vulnerable to arbitrary file access | Medium | Also affects nova |
| GHSA-7h75-hwxx-qpgc OpenStack Cinder, glance, and Nova vulnerable to Path Traversal | Medium | Also affects nova |
| GHSA-v725-c588-h936 OpenStack Nova Changing vnic_type breaks compute service restart | Low | Also affects nova |
| GHSA-22jm-4hxw-35jf OpenStack Nova can leak consoleauth token into log files | Low | Also affects nova |
| GHSA-43cm-73px-5v4m OpenStack Compute (Nova) Resource limit circumvention in Nova private flavors | Low | Also affects nova |
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