CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2019-14864

Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

Published: Jan 02, 2020 | Modified: Apr 22, 2022
CVSS 3.x
6.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS 2.x
4 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5.7 MODERATE
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Ubuntu
LOW

Ansible, versions 2.9.x before 2.9.1, 2.8.x before 2.8.7 and Ansible versions 2.7.x before 2.7.15, is not respecting the flag no_log set it to True when Sumologic and Splunk callback plugins are used send tasks results events to collectors. This would discloses and collects any sensitive data.

Weakness

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes output that is written to logs.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Ansible Redhat 2.7.0 (including) 2.7.15 (excluding)
Ansible Redhat 2.8.0 (including) 2.8.7 (excluding)
Ansible Redhat 2.9.0 (including) 2.9.1 (excluding)
Ansible_tower Redhat 3.0 (including) 3.0 (including)
Ceph_storage Redhat 3.0 (including) 3.0 (including)
Cloudforms_management_engine Redhat 5.0 (including) 5.0 (including)
Red Hat Ansible Engine 2.7 for RHEL 7 RedHat ansible-0:2.7.15-1.el7ae *
Red Hat Ansible Engine 2.8 for RHEL 7 RedHat ansible-0:2.8.7-1.el7ae *
Red Hat Ansible Engine 2.8 for RHEL 8 RedHat ansible-0:2.8.7-1.el8ae *
Red Hat Ansible Engine 2.9 for RHEL 7 RedHat ansible-0:2.9.1-1.el7 *
Red Hat Ansible Engine 2.9 for RHEL 8 RedHat ansible-0:2.9.1-1.el8 *
Red Hat Ansible Engine 2 for RHEL 7 RedHat ansible-0:2.9.1-1.el7 *
Red Hat Ansible Engine 2 for RHEL 8 RedHat ansible-0:2.9.1-1.el8 *
Ansible Ubuntu disco *
Ansible Ubuntu eoan *
Ansible Ubuntu trusty *
Ansible Ubuntu upstream *

Extended Description

This can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into logs. Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

Potential Mitigations

  • 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.

References