GHSA-qfp8-hfqx-c79c CVE-2013-0335 PYSEC-2013-43

OpenStack Compute Nova Unauthorised access to arbitrary VM using VNC token from deleted VM

Medium PyPI

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 2.14%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 82.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 12.0.0a0; Upgrade nova to this version or later

Description

OpenStack Compute (Nova) Grizzly, Folsom (2012.2), and Essex (2012.1) allows remote authenticated users to gain access to a VM in opportunistic circumstances by using the VNC token for a deleted VM that was bound to the same VNC port.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
nova	`< 12.0.0a0`	`12.0.0a0`

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 → `12.0.0a0`

pip

pip install --upgrade "nova>=12.0.0a0"

poetry

poetry add "nova>=12.0.0a0"

uv

uv add "nova>=12.0.0a0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: None
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): None
Integrity (vulnerable system): High
Availability (vulnerable system): None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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

github.com/openstack/nova

Timeline

Mar 22, 2013 Published
Nov 26, 2024 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

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

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