GHSA-r864-28pw-8682 BIT-harbor-2022-31668 CVE-2022-31668 GHSA-3wpx-625q-22j7 GO-2024-3268
Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when updating p2p preheat policies
- Severity
- 7.4 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.30%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.19% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-285 Improper Authorization
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when updating p2p preheat policies. By sending a request to update a p2p preheat policy with an id that belongs to a project that the currently authenticated user doesn't have access to, the attacker could modify p2p preheat policies configured in other projects.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/goharbor/harbor | >= 2.0.0, < 2.4.3 |
2.4.3 |
| github.com/goharbor/harbor | >= 2.5.0, < 2.5.2 |
2.5.2 |
| github.com/goharbor/harbor | >= 2.0.0+incompatible, < 2.4.3+incompatible>= 2.5.0+incompatible, < 2.5.2+incompatible |
2.4.3+incompatible2.5.2+incompatible |
| github.com/goharbor/harbor/src | < 0.0.0-20220630175814-b4ef1db |
0.0.0-20220630175814-b4ef1db |
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/goharbor/harbor Go → 2.4.3
- go
go get github.com/goharbor/harbor@v2.4.3 && go mod tidy
github.com/goharbor/harbor/src Go → 0.0.0-20220630175814-b4ef1db
- go
go get github.com/goharbor/harbor/src@v0.0.0-20220630175814-b4ef1db && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
- 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-prh4-vhfh-24mj Harbor: LDAP password and OIDC secret are not redacted in the audit log | Medium | Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor |
| GHSA-hj7x-hmf2-hc2p Harbor allows the use of the default password for web UI login | Critical | Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor |
| GHSA-h27m-3qw8-3pw8 Possible ORM Leak Vulnerability in the Harbor | Medium | Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor |
| GHSA-f9vc-vf3r-pqqq Harbor repository description page has Cross-site Scripting vulnerability | Medium | Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor |
| GHSA-hw28-333w-qxp3 Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when updating project configurations | Medium | Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor |
| GHSA-vw63-824v-qf2j SQL Injection in Harbor scan log API | Medium | Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor |
| GHSA-5757-v49g-f6r7 Open Redirect URL in Harbor | Medium | Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor |
| GHSA-mq6f-5xh5-hgcf Harbor timing attack risk | Medium | Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor |
Credits: Daniel Abeles (Oxeye Security), Gal Goldstein (Oxeye Security)
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