CVE-2024-27309

While an Apache Kafka cluster is being migrated from ZooKeeper mode to KRaft mode, in some cases ACLs will not be correctly enforced.

Two preconditions are needed to trigger the bug:

1. The administrator decides to remove an ACL
2. The resource associated with the removed ACL continues to have two or more other ACLs associated with it after the removal.

When those two preconditions are met, Kafka will treat the resource as if it had only one ACL associated with it after the removal, rather than the two or more that would be correct.

The incorrect condition is cleared by removing all brokers in ZK mode, or by adding a new ACL to the affected resource. Once the migration is completed, there is no metadata loss (the ACLs all remain).

The full impact depends on the ACLs in use. If only ALLOW ACLs were configured during the migration, the impact would be limited to availability impact. if DENY ACLs were configured, the impact could include confidentiality and integrity impact depending on the ACLs configured, as the DENY ACLs might be ignored due to this vulnerability during the migration period.

Weakness

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. This allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions.

Extended Description

Assuming a user with a given identity, authorization is the process of determining whether that user can access a given resource, based on the user’s privileges and any permissions or other access-control specifications that apply to the resource. When access control checks are incorrectly applied, users are able to access data or perform actions that they should not be allowed to perform. This can lead to a wide range of problems, including information exposures, denial of service, and arbitrary code execution.

Potential Mitigations

• Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
• Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
• Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
• For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
• For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
• One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.

References

• http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/04/12/3
• https://lists.apache.org/thread/6536rmzyg076lzzdw2xdktvnz163mjpy
• https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240705-0002/