GHSA-v2cv-wwxq-qq97 CVE-2019-14271 GO-2024-2521
Moby Docker cp broken with debian containers
Critical
Go
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 18.83%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 97.28% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-665 Improper Initialization
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
In Docker 19.03.x before 19.03.1 linked against the GNU C Library (aka glibc), code injection can occur when the nsswitch facility dynamically loads a library inside a chroot that contains the contents of the container.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/docker/docker | >= 19.03.0, < 19.03.1 |
19.03.1 |
| github.com/docker/docker | < 20.10.0-beta1+incompatible |
20.10.0-beta1+incompatible |
| github.com/moby/moby | < 20.10.0-beta1+incompatible |
20.10.0-beta1+incompatible |
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/docker/docker Go → 19.03.1
- go
go get github.com/docker/docker@v19.03.1 && go mod tidy
github.com/moby/moby Go → 20.10.0-beta1+incompatible
- go
go get github.com/moby/moby@v20.10.0-beta1+incompatible && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- 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
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-665: Improper Initialization
The product does not initialize or incorrectly initializes a resource, which might leave the resource in an unexpected state when it is accessed or used.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, in Java, if the programmer does not explicitly initialize a variable, then the code could produce a compile-time error (if the variable is local) or automatically initialize the variable to the default value for the variable's type. In Perl, if explicit initialization is not performed, then a default value of undef is assigned, which is interpreted as 0, false, or an equivalent value depending on the context in which the variable is accessed.
- Architecture and Design: Identify all variables and data stores that receive information from external sources, and apply input validation to make sure that they are only initialized to expected values.
- Implementation: Explicitly initialize all your variables and other data stores, either during declaration or just before the first usage.
- Implementation: Pay close attention to complex conditionals that affect initialization, since some conditions might not perform the initialization.
- Implementation: Avoid race conditions (CWE-362) during initialization routines.
- Build and Compilation: Run or compile your product with settings that generate warnings about uninitialized variables or data.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/moby/moby/issues/39449
- github.com/moby/moby/pull/39612
- github.com/moby/moby/commit/11e48badcb67554b3d795241855028f28d244545
- github.com/moby/moby/commit/fa8dd90ceb7bcb9d554d27e0b9087ab83e54bd2b
- docs.docker.com/engine/release-notes
- seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Sep/21
- security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190828-0003
- debian.org/security/2019/dsa-4521
- lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-08/msg00084.html
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-rg2x-37c3-w2rh Docker: Race condition in docker cp allows bind mount redirection to host path | High | Also affects github.com/docker/docker |
| GHSA-vp62-88p7-qqf5 Docker: Race condition in docker cp allows creation of arbitrary empty files on the host via symlink swap | Medium | Also affects github.com/docker/docker |
| GHSA-x86f-5xw2-fm2r Docker: `PUT /containers/{id}/archive` executes container binary on the host | High | Also affects github.com/docker/docker |
| GO-2026-4887 Moby has AuthZ plugin bypass when provided oversized request bodies | High | Also affects github.com/docker/docker |
| GHSA-pxq6-2prw-chj9 Moby has an Off-by-one error in its plugin privilege validation | High | Also affects github.com/docker/docker |
| GHSA-4vq8-7jfc-9cvp Moby firewalld reload removes bridge network isolation | Medium | Also affects github.com/docker/docker |
| GHSA-x4rx-4gw3-53p4 Moby firewalld reload makes published container ports accessible from remote hosts | Medium | Also affects github.com/docker/docker |
| GHSA-v23v-6jw2-98fq Authz zero length regression | Critical | Also affects github.com/docker/docker |
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