Vasion Print (formerly PrinterLogic) Virtual Appliance Host prior to version 22.0.1049 and Application prior to version 20.0.2786 (VA/SaaS deployments) expose internal Docker containers through the gw Docker instance. The gateway publishes a /meta endpoint which lists every micro‑service container together with version information. These containers are reachable directly over HTTP/HTTPS without any access‑control list (ACL), authentication or rate‑limiting. Consequently, any attacker on the LAN or the Internet can enumerate all internal services and their versions, interact with the exposed APIs of each microservice as an unauthenticated user, or issue malicious requests that may lead to information disclosure, privilege escalation within the container, or denial‑of‑service of the entire appliance. The root cause is the absence of authentication and network‑level restrictions on the API‑gateway’s proxy to internal Docker containers, effectively turning the internal service mesh into a public attack surface. This vulnerability has been identified by the vendor as: V-2024-030 — Exposed Internal Docker Instance (LAN).
Weakness
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Affected Software
| Name |
Vendor |
Start Version |
End Version |
| Virtual_appliance_application |
Vasion |
* |
20.0.2786 (excluding) |
| Virtual_appliance_host |
Vasion |
* |
22.0.1049 (excluding) |
Potential Mitigations
- Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
- Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port.
- In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
- Where possible, avoid implementing custom, “grow-your-own” authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks.
- In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
- 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
References