Skip to content

GHSA-xg58-75qf-9r67 BIT-cilium-2024-52529 BIT-cilium-operator-2024-52529 BIT-hubble-relay-2024-52529 CVE-2024-52529 GO-2024-3290

Cilium's Layer 7 policy enforcement may not occur in policies with wildcarded port ranges

Medium Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.52%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.22% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-755 Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
1.16.4
Upgrade github.com/cilium/cilium to this version or later

Description

Impact

For users with the following configuration:

then Layer 7 enforcement would not occur for the traffic selected by the Layer 7 policy.

This issue only affects users who use Cilium's port range functionality, which was introduced in Cilium v1.16.

For reference, an example of a pair of policies that would trigger this issue is:

apiVersion: "cilium.io/v2"
kind: CiliumNetworkPolicy
metadata:
  name: "layer-3-and-4"
spec:
  endpointSelector:
    matchLabels:
      app: service
  ingress:
    - fromCIDR:
      - 192.168.60.0/24
      toPorts:
      - ports:
        - port: "80"
          endPort: 444
          protocol: TCP

and

apiVersion: "cilium.io/v2"
kind: CiliumNetworkPolicy
metadata:
  name: "layer-4-and-7"
spec:
  endpointSelector:
    matchLabels:
      app: service
  ingress:
    toPorts:
    - ports:
      - port: "80"
        protocol: TCP
      rules:
        http:
        - method: "GET"
          path: "/public"

In the above example, requests would be permitted to all HTTP paths on matching endpoints, rather than just GET requests to the /public path as intended by the layer-4-and-7 policy. In patched versions of Cilium, the layer-4-and-7 rule would take precedence over the layer-3-and-4 rule.

Patches

This issue is patched in https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/35150.

This issue affects Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.3 inclusive.

This issue is patched in Cilium v1.16.4.

Workarounds

Users with network policies that match the pattern described above can work around the issue by rewriting any policies that use port ranges to individually specify the ports permitted for traffic.

Acknowledgements

The Cilium community has worked together with members of Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @jrajahalme for resolving this issue.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on Slack.

If you think you have found a vulnerability affecting Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our security mailing list at security@cilium.io. This is a private mailing list for the Cilium security team, and your report will be treated as top priority.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/cilium/cilium
>= 1.16.0, < 1.16.4
1.16.4

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/cilium/cilium Go → 1.16.4

go
go get github.com/cilium/cilium@v1.16.4 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 5.8

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-755: Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles an exceptional condition.

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform 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) [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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-fm8w-2m5w-9j7r
Cilium may unexpectedly allow ingress traffic from the local namespace when a Kubernetes NetworkPolicy is configured with an ipBlock match
Medium Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium
GHSA-w7c2-w76w-5hmj
Cilium: Namespaced HTTPRoutes can redirect traffic to other namespaces
High Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium
GHSA-q6h5-q3q6-f87x
CiliumLocalRedirectPolicy addressMatcher allows cross-namespace service traffic hijacking and can break service translation
Medium Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium
GHSA-3fcv-jvfp-m4q9
Cilium vulnerable to sensitive information disclosure and cluster disruption via local Envoy admin socket access
High Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium
GHSA-gj49-89wh-h4gj
Cillium exposes sensitive information included in the cilium-bugtool debug archive
Medium Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium
GHSA-hxv8-4j4r-cqgv
Cilium L7 proxy may bypass Kubernetes NetworkPolicy for same-node traffic
Medium Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium
GHSA-5r23-prx4-mqg3
Cilium may not enforce host firewall policies when Native Routing, WireGuard and Node Encryption are enabled
Medium Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium
GHSA-38pp-6gcp-rqvm
Cilium with misconfigured toGroups in policies can lead to unrestricted egress traffic
Medium Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium
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