Skip to content

GHSA-qf5v-m7p4-95rp CVE-2026-50570 GO-2026-6129

Fission: Incomplete capability denylist in Environment/Function PodSpec validation allows tenant-added CAP_SYS_TIME and cross-tenant node wall-clock corruption

High Go
Severity
8.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.27%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 19.81% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management
CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
Fix
1.25.0
Upgrade github.com/fission/fission to this version or later

Description

Fission v1.24.0 added PodSpec safety validation for tenant-facing Environment and Function CRDs (ValidatePodSpecSafety / ValidateContainerSafety admission webhook + sanitizeContainerSecurityContext executor merge layer), but the capability check was implemented as a fixed denylist of six Linux capabilities (SYS_ADMIN, NET_ADMIN, SYS_PTRACE, SYS_MODULE, DAC_READ_SEARCH, DAC_OVERRIDE). The denylist omitted CAP_SYS_TIME, among others. As a result, a tenant who could create a Function or Environment CRD could request securityContext.capabilities.add: ["SYS_TIME"], pass Fission's admission validation and merge-layer sanitization, and run attacker-controlled code with CAP_SYS_TIME in the resulting function or runtime container.

Demonstrated consequence: cross-tenant node integrity damage via CAP_SYS_TIME. The Linux real-time clock is not namespaced — time namespaces virtualize only MONOTONIC and BOOTTIME, never REALTIME — so a tenant container holding CAP_SYS_TIME could call clock_settime(CLOCK_REALTIME) and rewrite the shared node wall clock. That corrupts TLS / certificate validity windows, Kubernetes lease renewal, token expiry, scheduling, and time-series for every workload on the node.

The denylist also omitted SYS_RAWIO, BPF, SYS_RESOURCE, and MAC_ADMIN. Those are documented as evidence that the denylist is structurally incomplete (their practical impact is kernel-, LSM-, or device-cgroup-dependent and is not exercised in this report).

The deeper structural problem: a denylist on capabilities.add cannot constrain capabilities the OCI runtime grants by default — DAC_OVERRIDE is in the OCI default cap set and reaches the container regardless of any add check, partially mooting the denylist for its own entries. A capability allowlist (with drop:["ALL"] to remove the default set) is the only model that addresses both problems.

Affected

  • Project: github.com/fission/fission
  • Versions: <= 1.24.0
  • Audited commits: v1.24.0 tag (ce617120) and current HEAD at audit time
  • Component: pkg/apis/core/v1/podspec_safety.go (dangerousCapabilities) and pkg/executor/util/merge.go (dangerousMergeContainerCapabilities)
  • Pre-condition: cluster does not enforce a restrictive Pod Security Admission (PSA) profile on the function-pod namespace. With PSA restricted in force the API server's PodSecurity admission rejects the pod at creation and this finding does not apply. Fission added its own PodSpec validation precisely because it cannot assume PSA enforcement.

Fix section (paste into the Fix / Patches field)

Fixed in v1.25.0 by:

  • PR #3465 (commit 2569b42b) — replace the denylist with a PSA-restricted allowlist (NET_BIND_SERVICE only) at both enforcement layers:
    • pkg/apis/core/v1/podspec_safety.go — ValidateContainerSafety now rejects any capabilities.add entry not in allowedCapabilities. The container check is invoked from ValidatePodSpecSafety for every PodSpec container / init-container and from Environment.validateForAdmission for the bare Runtime.Container / Builder.Container.
    • pkg/executor/util/merge.go — sanitizeContainerSecurityContext filters capabilities.add through the same allowlist at every merge site (poolmgr / newdeploy / container executor / builder).
  • The same PR adds 21 bounded CEL XValidation rules covering the cheap pod-level invariants (hostNetwork / hostPID / hostIPC / serviceAccountName / serviceAccount override) on FunctionSpec, Runtime, and Builder, plus the bare-Container SecurityContext checks (privileged != true, allowPrivilegeEscalation != true, capabilities.add ⊆ {NET_BIND_SERVICE}) on Runtime and Builder. The API server now short-circuits those attack vectors per CRD apply before the webhook is invoked. Per-container PodSpec iteration stays in the webhook because it exceeds the API server's CEL cost budget.
  • The same PR also adds two forward-compat regression guards in pkg/apis/core/v1/podspec_safety_test.go:
    • TestAllTenantContainerSurfacesAreValidated walks every CRD root type via reflection and fails if any reachable *apiv1.PodSpec or *apiv1.Container field is missing from the hand-maintained known-covered set.
    • TestTenantContainerSurfaces_RejectSysAdmin end-to-end exercises each covered surface and asserts ValidateForAdmission rejects a SYS_ADMIN injection at that exact path.

Not addressed in v1.25.0

The advisory's structural recommendation to force capabilities.drop: ["ALL"] at the merge layer is not part of this fix. Fission's own sidecar containers (fission-fetcher, builder) were authored against the OCI default capability set and need a per-container cap audit before drop:["ALL"] can be applied uniformly. The allowlist on capabilities.add closes the demonstrated CAP_SYS_TIME impact; the OCI-default-cap concern (which the advisory itself marks as conditional / not demonstrated) is tracked separately.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/fission/fission
< 1.25.0
1.25.0

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/fission/fission Go → 1.25.0

go
go get github.com/fission/fission@v1.25.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.

CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user) [REF-62], and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly. This will allow you to maintain more fine-grained control over your resources. [REF-207]
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Implementation, Installation: During program startup, explicitly set the default permissions or umask to the most restrictive setting possible. Also set the appropriate permissions during program installation. This will prevent you from inheriting insecure permissions from any user who installs or runs the program.
  • System Configuration: For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator.
  • Documentation: Do not suggest insecure configuration changes in documentation, especially if those configurations can extend to resources and other programs that are outside the scope of the application.
  • Installation: Do not assume that a system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that are recommended in the software's manual.
  • Operation, System Configuration: Ensure that the software runs properly under the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) [REF-199] or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software.
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to disable public access.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7m8x-qg2j-4m3v
Fission: MessageQueueTrigger scaler manager materializes Secret values into Deployment envvars and accepts arbitrary user PodSpec
High Also affects github.com/fission/fission
GHSA-vchh-r53j-8mpw
Fission: HTTPTrigger admission omits RelativeURL / Prefix validation; kubectl apply bypasses CLI checks
Medium Also affects github.com/fission/fission
GHSA-r5jh-q2mw-gcx4
Fission: SanitizeFilePath lexical HasPrefix bypass permits sibling-directory escape
Low Also affects github.com/fission/fission
GHSA-q6vm-xqc9-v3ff
Fission: Zip Slip in pkg/utils/zip.go:Unarchive allows fetcher to write outside the destination directory
High Also affects github.com/fission/fission
GHSA-m63v-2g9w-2w6v
Fission: Environment Runtime.Container and Builder.Container SecurityContext bypass allows privileged pod creation
Critical Also affects github.com/fission/fission
GHSA-8wcj-mfrc-jx5q
Fission builder pods auto-mount the fission-builder ServiceAccount token in the user-supplied builder container
Medium Also affects github.com/fission/fission
GHSA-gx55-f84r-v3r7
Fission Environment CRD podspec passthrough enables hostPID/hostNetwork/privileged pods, node escape
Critical Also affects github.com/fission/fission
GHSA-v455-mv2v-5g92
Fission Container Executor Function PodSpec Injection Leading to Node Escape
Critical Also affects github.com/fission/fission
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