GHSA-r3hx-qfh5-r9m7 BIT-elasticsearch-2024-23451 CVE-2024-23451
Elasticsearch Incorrect Authorization vulnerability
- Severity
- 4.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.49%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.33% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
8.13.0- Upgrade org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch to this version or later
Description
Incorrect Authorization issue exists in the API key based security model for Remote Cluster Security, which is currently in Beta, in Elasticsearch 8.10.0 and before 8.13.0. This allows a malicious user with a valid API key for a remote cluster configured to use the new Remote Cluster Security to read arbitrary documents from any index on the remote cluster, and only if they use the Elasticsearch custom transport protocol to issue requests with the target index ID, the shard ID and the document ID. None of Elasticsearch REST API endpoints are affected by this issue.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch | >= 8.10.0, < 8.13.0 |
8.13.0 |
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.
org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch Maven → 8.13.0
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.elasticsearch</groupId><artifactId>elasticsearch</artifactId><version>8.13.0</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch:8.13.0")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- 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
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mrfm-jxgf-2h6v Elasticsearch Improper Access Control vulnerability | High Known exploited | Also affects org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch |
| GHSA-w94p-6mhw-4qxw Improper Access Control in Elasticsearch | High Known exploited | Also affects org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch |
| GHSA-mm3m-5497-xggg Elasticsearch Uncontrolled Resource Consumption Vulnerability | High | Also affects org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch |
| GHSA-5xm9-x7x4-4j5x Elasticsearch Vulnerable to Stack Overflow due to a Large Recursion | High | Also affects org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch |
| GHSA-jgx4-7v3v-vwfm Elasticsearch allocation of resources without limits or throttling leads to crash | High | Also affects org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch |
| GHSA-5mpw-4546-2wcr Elasticsearch Incorrect Authorization vulnerability | Medium | Also affects org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch |
| GHSA-5v8f-xx9m-wj44 Elasticsearch stores private key on disk unencrypted | High | Also affects org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch |
| GHSA-2hjr-vmf3-xwvp Elasticsearch Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File | Medium | Also affects org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch |
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