DataHub is an open-source metadata platform. The HMAC signature for DataHub Frontend sessions was being signed using a SHA-1 HMAC with the frontend secret key. SHA1 with a 10 byte key can be brute forced using sufficient resources (i.e. state level actors with large computational capabilities). DataHub Frontend was utilizing the Play LegacyCookiesModule with default settings which utilizes a SHA1 HMAC for signing. This is compounded by using a shorter key length than recommended by default for the signing key for the randomized secret value. An authenticated attacker (or attacker who has otherwise obtained a session token) could crack the signing key for DataHub and obtain escalated privileges by generating a privileged session cookie. Due to key length being a part of the risk, deployments should update to the latest helm chart and rotate their session signing secret. All deployments using the default helm chart configurations for generating the Play secret key used for signing are affected by this vulnerability. Version 0.11.1 resolves this vulnerability. All users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Datahub | Datahub_project | * | 0.11.1 (excluding) |
Cryptographic algorithms are the methods by which data is scrambled to prevent observation or influence by unauthorized actors. Insecure cryptography can be exploited to expose sensitive information, modify data in unexpected ways, spoof identities of other users or devices, or other impacts. It is very difficult to produce a secure algorithm, and even high-profile algorithms by accomplished cryptographic experts have been broken. Well-known techniques exist to break or weaken various kinds of cryptography. Accordingly, there are a small number of well-understood and heavily studied algorithms that should be used by most products. Using a non-standard or known-insecure algorithm is dangerous because a determined adversary may be able to break the algorithm and compromise whatever data has been protected. Since the state of cryptography advances so rapidly, it is common for an algorithm to be considered “unsafe” even if it was once thought to be strong. This can happen when new attacks are discovered, or if computing power increases so much that the cryptographic algorithm no longer provides the amount of protection that was originally thought. For a number of reasons, this weakness is even more challenging to manage with hardware deployment of cryptographic algorithms as opposed to software implementation. First, if a flaw is discovered with hardware-implemented cryptography, the flaw cannot be fixed in most cases without a recall of the product, because hardware is not easily replaceable like software. Second, because the hardware product is expected to work for years, the adversary’s computing power will only increase over time.