Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Runtime Security
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-0690

Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

Published: Feb 06, 2024 | Modified: Jan 17, 2025
CVSS 3.x
5.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-0690
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/117.html

An information disclosure flaw was found in ansible-core due to a failure to respect the ANSIBLE_NO_LOG configuration in some scenarios. Information is still included in the output in certain tasks, such as loop items. Depending on the task, this issue may include sensitive information, such as decrypted secret values.

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 * 2.14.4 (excluding)
Ansible Redhat 2.15.0 (including) 2.15.9 (excluding)
Ansible Redhat 2.16.0 (including) 2.16.3 (excluding)
Enterprise_linux Redhat 8.0 (including) 8.0 (including)
Enterprise_linux Redhat 9.0 (including) 9.0 (including)
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 8 RedHat ansible-core-1:2.15.9-1.el8ap *
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat ansible-core-1:2.15.9-1.el9ap *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat ansible-core-0:2.16.3-2.el8 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat ansible-core-1:2.14.14-1.el9 *
Ansible Ubuntu bionic *
Ansible Ubuntu lunar *
Ansible Ubuntu mantic *
Ansible Ubuntu trusty *
Ansible Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Ansible Ubuntu xenial *
Ansible-core Ubuntu lunar *
Ansible-core Ubuntu mantic *

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

Aqua Security is the largest pure-play cloud native security company, providing customers the freedom to innovate and run their businesses with minimal friction. The Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform provides prevention, detection, and response automation across the entire application lifecycle to secure the build, secure cloud infrastructure and secure running workloads wherever they are deployed.
Copyright © 2025 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use