CVE-2024-47060

Zitadel is an open source identity management platform. In Zitadel, even after an organization is deactivated, associated projects, respectively their applications remain active. Users across other organizations can still log in and access through these applications, leading to unauthorized access. Additionally, if a project was deactivated access to applications was also still possible. The issue stems from the fact that when an organization is deactivated in Zitadel, the applications associated with it do not automatically deactivate. The application lifecycle is not tightly coupled with the organizations lifecycle, leading to a situation where the organization or project is marked as inactive, but its resources remain accessible. This vulnerability allows for unauthorized access to projects and their resources, which should have been restricted post-organization deactivation. Versions 2.62.1, 2.61.1, 2.60.2, 2.59.3, 2.58.5, 2.57.5, 2.56.6, 2.55.8, and 2.54.10 have been released which address this issue. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may explicitly disable the application to make sure the client is not allowed anymore.

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.

Affected Software

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

• https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/security/advisories/GHSA-jj94-6f5c-65r8