Security
Headlines
HeadlinesLatestCVEs

Tag

#vulnerability

GHSA-h84q-m8rr-3v9q: wasmtime_trap_code C API function has out of bounds write vulnerability

### Impact There is a bug in Wasmtime's C API implementation where the definition of the `wasmtime_trap_code` does not match its declared signature in the `wasmtime/trap.h` header file. This discrepancy causes the function implementation to perform a 4-byte write into a 1-byte buffer provided by the caller. This can lead to three zero bytes being written beyond the 1-byte location provided by the caller. ### Patches This bug has been patched and users should upgrade to Wasmtime 2.0.2. ### Workarounds This can be worked around by providing a 4-byte buffer casted to a 1-byte buffer when calling `wasmtime_trap_code`. Users of the `wasmtime` crate are not affected by this issue, only users of the C API function `wasmtime_trap_code` are affected. ### References * [Definition of `wasmtime_trap_code`](https://docs.wasmtime.dev/c-api/trap_8h.html#a6580f4f209d3eaebb6e8b9a901a30b7a) * [Mailing list announcement](https://groups.google.com/a/bytecodealliance.org/g/sec-announce/c/c1HBDDJwNPA...

ghsa
#vulnerability#google#git
GHSA-3fwx-pjgw-3558: Moby (Docker Engine) Insufficiently restricted permissions on data directory

## Impact A bug was found in Moby (Docker Engine) where the data directory (typically `/var/lib/docker`) contained subdirectories with insufficiently restricted permissions, allowing otherwise unprivileged Linux users to traverse directory contents and execute programs. When containers included executable programs with extended permission bits (such as `setuid`), unprivileged Linux users could discover and execute those programs. When the UID of an unprivileged Linux user on the host collided with the file owner or group inside a container, the unprivileged Linux user on the host could discover, read, and modify those files. ## Patches This bug has been fixed in Moby (Docker Engine) 20.10.9. Users should update to this version as soon as possible. Running containers should be stopped and restarted for the permissions to be fixed. ## Workarounds Limit access to the host to trusted users. Limit access to host volumes to trusted containers. ## Credits The Moby project would li...

GHSA-v5gq-qvjq-8p53: Grafana Cross-site Scripting (XSS)

Grafana before 5.2.0-beta1 has XSS vulnerabilities in dashboard links.

GHSA-6g2q-w5j3-fwh4: containerd environment variable leak

## Impact Containers launched through containerd's CRI implementation (through Kubernetes, crictl, or any other pod/container client that uses the containerd CRI service) that share the same image may receive incorrect environment variables, including values that are defined for other containers. If the affected containers have different security contexts, this may allow sensitive information to be unintentionally shared. If you are not using containerd’s CRI implementation (through one of the mechanisms described above), you are not vulnerable to this issue. If you are not launching multiple containers or Kubernetes pods from the same image which have different environment variables, you are not vulnerable to this issue. If you are not launching multiple containers or Kubernetes pods from the same image in rapid succession, you have reduced likelihood of being vulnerable to this issue ## Patches This vulnerability has been fixed in containerd 1.3.10 and containerd 1.4.4. Users...

GHSA-6fj5-m822-rqx8: moby docker daemon crash during image pull of malicious image

### Impact Pulling an intentionally malformed Docker image manifest crashes the `dockerd` daemon. ### Patches Versions 20.10.3 and 19.03.15 contain patches that prevent the daemon from crashing. ### Credits Maintainers would like to thank Josh Larsen, Ian Coldwater, Duffie Cooley, Rory McCune for working on the vulnerability and Brad Geesaman for responsibly disclosing it to [email protected].

GHSA-7452-xqpj-6rpc: moby Access to remapped root allows privilege escalation to real root

### Impact When using `--userns-remap`, if the root user in the remapped namespace has access to the host filesystem they can modify files under `/var/lib/docker/<remapping>` that cause writing files with extended privileges. ### Patches Versions 20.10.3 and 19.03.15 contain patches that prevent privilege escalation from remapped user. ### Credits Maintainers would like to thank Alex Chapman for discovering the vulnerability; @awprice, @nathanburrell, @raulgomis, @chris-walz, @erin-jensby, @bassmatt, @mark-adams, @dbaxa for working on it and Zac Ellis for responsibly disclosing it to [email protected]

GHSA-rpgp-9hmg-j25x: Enumeration of users in HashiCorp Vault

HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise allowed the enumeration of users via the LDAP auth method. Fixed in 1.5.6 and 1.6.1.

GHSA-6m72-467w-94rh: Privilege Escalation in HashiCorp Consul

HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise 1.2.0 up to 1.8.5 allowed operators with operator:read ACL permissions to read the Connect CA private key configuration. Fixed in 1.6.10, 1.7.10, and 1.8.6.

GHSA-496g-fr33-whrf: Denial of service in HashiCorp Consul

HashiCorp Consul Enterprise versions 1.7.0 up to 1.7.8 and 1.8.0 up to 1.8.4 includes a namespace replication bug which can be triggered to cause denial of service via infinite Raft writes. Fixed in 1.7.9 and 1.8.5.

GHSA-xr7r-f8xq-vfvv: runc vulnerable to container breakout through process.cwd trickery and leaked fds

### Impact In runc 1.1.11 and earlier, due to an internal file descriptor leak, an attacker could cause a newly-spawned container process (from `runc exec`) to have a working directory in the host filesystem namespace, allowing for a container escape by giving access to the host filesystem ("attack 2"). The same attack could be used by a malicious image to allow a container process to gain access to the host filesystem through `runc run` ("attack 1"). Variants of attacks 1 and 2 could be also be used to overwrite semi-arbitrary host binaries, allowing for complete container escapes ("attack 3a" and "attack 3b"). Strictly speaking, while attack 3a is the most severe from a CVSS perspective, attacks 2 and 3b are arguably more dangerous in practice because they allow for a breakout from inside a container as opposed to requiring a user execute a malicious image. The reason attacks 1 and 3a are scored higher is because being able to socially engineer users is treated as a given for UI:R ...