GHSA-v4h8-794j-g8mm CVE-2015-3631 GO-2022-0708
Arbitrary File Override in Docker Engine
Medium
Go
- Severity
- 5.1 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.57%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-285 Improper Authorization
- Fix
1.6.1- Upgrade github.com/docker/docker to this version or later
Description
Docker Engine before 1.6.1 allows local users to set arbitrary Linux Security Modules (LSM) and docker_t policies via an image that allows volumes to override files in /proc.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/docker/docker | < 1.6.1 |
1.6.1 |
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 → 1.6.1
- go
go get github.com/docker/docker@v1.6.1 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- 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
- github.com/moby/moby/compare/769acfec2928c47a35da5357d854145b1036448d...b6a9dc3…
- groups.google.com/forum
- groups.google.com/forum
- web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail
- lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-updates/2015-05/msg00023.html
- packetstormsecurity.com/files/131835/Docker-Privilege-Escalation-Information-Disclosure.html
- seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2015/May/28
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