gsd-2023-43635
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:20
Details
Vault Key Sealed With SHA1 PCRs The measured boot solution implemented in EVE OS leans on a PCR locking mechanism. Different parts of the system update different PCR values in the TPM, resulting in a unique value for each PCR entry. These PCRs are then used in order to seal/unseal a key from the TPM which is used to encrypt/decrypt the “vault” directory. This “vault” directory is the most sensitive point in the system and as such, its content should be protected. This mechanism is noted in Zededa’s documentation as the “measured boot” mechanism, designed to protect said “vault”. The code that’s responsible for generating and fetching the key from the TPM assumes that SHA256 PCRs are used in order to seal/unseal the key, and as such their presence is being checked. The issue here is that the key is not sealed using SHA256 PCRs, but using SHA1 PCRs. This leads to several issues: • Machines that have their SHA256 PCRs enabled but SHA1 PCRs disabled, as well as not sealing their keys at all, meaning the “vault” is not protected from an attacker. • SHA1 is considered insecure and reduces the complexity level required to unseal the key in machines which have their SHA1 PCRs enabled. An attacker can very easily retrieve the contents of the “vault”, which will effectively render the “measured boot” mechanism meaningless.
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2023-43635


To clipboard 

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2023-43635",
    "id": "GSD-2023-43635"
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2023-43635"
      ],
      "details": "\nVault Key Sealed With SHA1 PCRs\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe measured boot solution implemented in EVE OS leans on a PCR locking mechanism.\n\nDifferent parts of the system update different PCR values in the TPM, resulting in a unique\nvalue for each PCR entry.\n\nThese PCRs are then used in order to seal/unseal a key from the TPM which is used to\nencrypt/decrypt the \u201cvault\u201d directory.\n\nThis \u201cvault\u201d directory is the most sensitive point in the system and as such, its content should\nbe protected.\n\nThis mechanism is noted in Zededa\u2019s documentation as the \u201cmeasured boot\u201d mechanism,\ndesigned to protect said \u201cvault\u201d.\n\nThe code that\u2019s responsible for generating and fetching the key from the TPM assumes that\nSHA256 PCRs are used in order to seal/unseal the key, and as such their presence is being\nchecked.\n\nThe issue here is that the key is not sealed using SHA256 PCRs, but using SHA1 PCRs.\nThis leads to several issues:\n\n\u2022 Machines that have their SHA256 PCRs enabled but SHA1 PCRs disabled, as well\nas not sealing their keys at all, meaning the \u201cvault\u201d is not protected from an attacker.\n\n\u2022 SHA1 is considered insecure and reduces the complexity level required to unseal the\nkey in machines which have their SHA1 PCRs enabled.\n\n\n\nAn attacker can very easily retrieve the contents of the \u201cvault\u201d, which will effectively render\nthe \u201cmeasured boot\u201d mechanism meaningless.\n\n\n\n\n\n",
      "id": "GSD-2023-43635",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:20:44.736942Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "cve@asrg.io",
        "ID": "CVE-2023-43635",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "EVE OS",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_affected": "\u003c",
                          "version_name": "0",
                          "version_value": "9.5.0"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": " LF-Edge, Zededa"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "Ilay Levi"
        }
      ],
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "\nVault Key Sealed With SHA1 PCRs\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe measured boot solution implemented in EVE OS leans on a PCR locking mechanism.\n\nDifferent parts of the system update different PCR values in the TPM, resulting in a unique\nvalue for each PCR entry.\n\nThese PCRs are then used in order to seal/unseal a key from the TPM which is used to\nencrypt/decrypt the \u201cvault\u201d directory.\n\nThis \u201cvault\u201d directory is the most sensitive point in the system and as such, its content should\nbe protected.\n\nThis mechanism is noted in Zededa\u2019s documentation as the \u201cmeasured boot\u201d mechanism,\ndesigned to protect said \u201cvault\u201d.\n\nThe code that\u2019s responsible for generating and fetching the key from the TPM assumes that\nSHA256 PCRs are used in order to seal/unseal the key, and as such their presence is being\nchecked.\n\nThe issue here is that the key is not sealed using SHA256 PCRs, but using SHA1 PCRs.\nThis leads to several issues:\n\n\u2022 Machines that have their SHA256 PCRs enabled but SHA1 PCRs disabled, as well\nas not sealing their keys at all, meaning the \u201cvault\u201d is not protected from an attacker.\n\n\u2022 SHA1 is considered insecure and reduces the complexity level required to unseal the\nkey in machines which have their SHA1 PCRs enabled.\n\n\n\nAn attacker can very easily retrieve the contents of the \u201cvault\u201d, which will effectively render\nthe \u201cmeasured boot\u201d mechanism meaningless.\n\n\n\n\n\n"
          }
        ]
      },
      "generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.1.0-dev"
      },
      "impact": {
        "cvss": [
          {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "LOCAL",
            "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "baseScore": 8.8,
            "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
            "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
            "scope": "CHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
            "version": "3.1"
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "cweId": "CWE-522",
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "CWE-522 Insufficiently Protected Credentials"
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "cweId": "CWE-328",
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "CWE-328 Use of Weak Hash"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://asrg.io/security-advisories/cve-2023-43635/",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://asrg.io/security-advisories/cve-2023-43635/"
          }
        ]
      },
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:o:linuxfoundation:edge_virtualization_engine:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndExcluding": "9.5.0",
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@asrg.io",
          "ID": "CVE-2023-43635"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "\nVault Key Sealed With SHA1 PCRs\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe measured boot solution implemented in EVE OS leans on a PCR locking mechanism.\n\nDifferent parts of the system update different PCR values in the TPM, resulting in a unique\nvalue for each PCR entry.\n\nThese PCRs are then used in order to seal/unseal a key from the TPM which is used to\nencrypt/decrypt the \u201cvault\u201d directory.\n\nThis \u201cvault\u201d directory is the most sensitive point in the system and as such, its content should\nbe protected.\n\nThis mechanism is noted in Zededa\u2019s documentation as the \u201cmeasured boot\u201d mechanism,\ndesigned to protect said \u201cvault\u201d.\n\nThe code that\u2019s responsible for generating and fetching the key from the TPM assumes that\nSHA256 PCRs are used in order to seal/unseal the key, and as such their presence is being\nchecked.\n\nThe issue here is that the key is not sealed using SHA256 PCRs, but using SHA1 PCRs.\nThis leads to several issues:\n\n\u2022 Machines that have their SHA256 PCRs enabled but SHA1 PCRs disabled, as well\nas not sealing their keys at all, meaning the \u201cvault\u201d is not protected from an attacker.\n\n\u2022 SHA1 is considered insecure and reduces the complexity level required to unseal the\nkey in machines which have their SHA1 PCRs enabled.\n\n\n\nAn attacker can very easily retrieve the contents of the \u201cvault\u201d, which will effectively render\nthe \u201cmeasured boot\u201d mechanism meaningless.\n\n\n\n\n\n"
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-327"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://asrg.io/security-advisories/cve-2023-43635/",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [],
              "url": "https://asrg.io/security-advisories/cve-2023-43635/"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "LOCAL",
            "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "baseScore": 8.8,
            "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
            "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
            "scope": "CHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 2.0,
          "impactScore": 6.0
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2023-09-28T06:15Z",
      "publishedDate": "2023-09-20T15:15Z"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.