In OpenShift Container Platform, a user with permissions to create or modify Routes can craft a payload that inserts a malformed entry into one of the cluster routers HAProxy configuration files. This malformed entry can match any arbitrary hostname, or all hostnames in the cluster, and direct traffic to an arbitrary application within the cluster, including one under attacker control.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Openshift_container_platform | Redhat | 3.11 (including) | 3.11 (including) |
| Openshift_container_platform | Redhat | 4.6 (including) | 4.6 (including) |
| Openshift_container_platform | Redhat | 4.7 (including) | 4.7 (including) |
| Openshift_container_platform | Redhat | 4.8 (including) | 4.8 (including) |
| Openshift_container_platform | Redhat | 4.9 (including) | 4.9 (including) |
| Openshift_container_platform | Redhat | 4.10 (including) | 4.10 (including) |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 3.11 | RedHat | openshift3/ose-haproxy-router:v3.11.705-1.g7a17a5d | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.10 | RedHat | openshift4/ose-haproxy-router:v4.10.0-202204291840.p0.g11109e4.assembly.stream | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.6 | RedHat | openshift4/ose-haproxy-router:v4.6.0-202205131546.p0.g7d2af02.assembly.stream | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.7 | RedHat | openshift4/ose-haproxy-router:v4.7.0-202205131637.p0.ge246a5f.assembly.stream | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.8 | RedHat | openshift4/ose-haproxy-router:v4.8.0-202205131628.p0.gd0d6380.assembly.stream | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.9 | RedHat | openshift4/ose-haproxy-router:v4.9.0-202205131707.p0.gfe7ea46.assembly.stream | * |
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.