CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2021-43998

Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

Published: Nov 30, 2021 | Modified: Sep 08, 2022
CVSS 3.x
6.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS 2.x
5.5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:N
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
6.5 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Ubuntu

HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise 0.11.0 up to 1.7.5 and 1.8.4 templated ACL policies would always match the first-created entity alias if multiple entity aliases exist for a specified entity and mount combination, potentially resulting in incorrect policy enforcement. Fixed in Vault and Vault Enterprise 1.7.6, 1.8.5, and 1.9.0.

Weakness

The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Vault Hashicorp 0.11.0 (including) 1.7.5 (including)
Vault Hashicorp 1.8.4 (including) 1.8.4 (including)
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat openshift4/bare-metal-event-relay-operator-bundle:v4.13.0-39 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat openshift4/bare-metal-event-relay-rhel8-operator:v4.13.0-42 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat openshift4/baremetal-hardware-event-proxy-rhel8:v4.13.0-21 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat openshift4/topology-aware-lifecycle-manager-operator-bundle:v4.13.0-70 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat openshift4/topology-aware-lifecycle-manager-precache-rhel8:v4.13.0-45 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat openshift4/topology-aware-lifecycle-manager-recovery-rhel8:v4.13.0-43 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat openshift4/topology-aware-lifecycle-manager-rhel8-operator:v4.13.0-70 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat openshift4/ztp-site-generate-rhel8:v4.13.0-45 *
RHODF-4.13-RHEL-9 RedHat odf4/odf-rhel9-operator:v4.13.0-24 *
RHODF-4.13-RHEL-9 RedHat odf4/rook-ceph-rhel9-operator:v4.13.0-70 *

Potential Mitigations

  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References