In Apache Impala 2.7.0 to 3.2.0, an authenticated user with access to the IDs of active Impala queries or sessions can interact with those sessions or queries via a specially-constructed request and thereby potentially bypass authorization and audit mechanisms. Session and query IDs are unique and random, but have not been documented or consistently treated as sensitive secrets. Therefore they may be exposed in logs or interfaces. They were also not generated with a cryptographically secure random number generator, so are vulnerable to random number generator attacks that predict future IDs based on past IDs. Impala deployments with Apache Sentry or Apache Ranger authorization enabled may be vulnerable to privilege escalation if an authenticated attacker is able to hijack a session or query from another authenticated user with privileges not assigned to the attacker. Impala deployments with audit logging enabled may be vulnerable to incorrect audit logging as a user could undertake actions that were logged under the name of a different authenticated user. Constructing an attack requires a high degree of technical sophistication and access to the Impala system as an authenticated user.
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impala | Apache | 2.7.0 (including) | 3.2.0 (including) |
Ensure that encryption is properly integrated into the system design, including but not necessarily limited to:
Identify the separate needs and contexts for encryption:
Using threat modeling or other techniques, assume that data can be compromised through a separate vulnerability or weakness, and determine where encryption will be most effective. Ensure that data that should be private is not being inadvertently exposed using weaknesses such as insecure permissions (CWE-732). [REF-7]
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-2 certification.
Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. Reverse engineering techniques are mature. If the algorithm can be compromised if attackers find out how it works, then it is especially weak.
Periodically ensure that the cryptography has not become obsolete. Some older algorithms, once thought to require a billion years of computing time, can now be broken in days or hours. This includes MD4, MD5, SHA1, DES, and other algorithms that were once regarded as strong. [REF-267]
Compartmentalize the system to have “safe” areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.