Contrast is a confidential-computing runtime for Kubernetes. In versions before 1.18.0, the guest kernels ACPI/AML handling is vulnerable to an AML injection attack (BadAML). ACPI tables containing AML bytecode are passed from the untrusted host (QEMU) to the guest firmware (OVMF) and on to the Linux kernel, whose AML interpreter executes them. An attacker controlling the host — an assumed adversary in Contrasts threat model — can craft a table with malicious, Turing-complete AML bytecode that the guest kernel interprets with access to the full guest memory, including private pages, resulting in arbitrary code execution and disclosure or modification of confidential guest data. The issue affects the AMD SEV-SNP platforms Metal-QEMU-SNP and Metal-QEMU-SNP-GPU; Metal-QEMU-TDX is not affected because ACPI table contents are measured into RTMR 0 by OVMF on Intel TDX. Version v1.18.0 mitigates the attack by sandboxing the kernel AML interpreter so that it cannot read or write private memory pages. This weakness is not specific to Contrast but is generic to Confidential Computing setups that expose the ACPI interface to the host.
Weakness
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Potential Mitigations
- Run your code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
- Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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.
- To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
Related Attack Patterns
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/242.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/35.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html