gsd-2024-28250
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2024-03-08 06:02
Details
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. Starting in version 1.14.0 and prior to versions 1.14.8 and 1.15.2, In Cilium clusters with WireGuard enabled and traffic matching Layer 7 policies Wireguard-eligible traffic that is sent between a node's Envoy proxy and pods on other nodes is sent unencrypted and Wireguard-eligible traffic that is sent between a node's DNS proxy and pods on other nodes is sent unencrypted. This issue has been resolved in Cilium 1.14.8 and 1.15.2 in in native routing mode (`routingMode=native`) and in Cilium 1.14.4 in tunneling mode (`routingMode=tunnel`). Not that in tunneling mode, `encryption.wireguard.encapsulate` must be set to `true`. There is no known workaround for this issue.
Aliases


To clipboard 

{
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2024-28250"
      ],
      "details": "Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. Starting in version 1.14.0 and prior to versions 1.14.8 and 1.15.2, In Cilium clusters with WireGuard enabled and traffic matching Layer 7 policies Wireguard-eligible traffic that is sent between a node\u0027s Envoy proxy and pods on other nodes is sent unencrypted and Wireguard-eligible traffic that is sent between a node\u0027s DNS proxy and pods on other nodes is sent unencrypted. This issue has been resolved in Cilium 1.14.8 and 1.15.2 in in native routing mode (`routingMode=native`) and in Cilium 1.14.4 in tunneling mode (`routingMode=tunnel`). Not that in tunneling mode, `encryption.wireguard.encapsulate` must be set to `true`. There is no known workaround for this issue.",
      "id": "GSD-2024-28250",
      "modified": "2024-03-08T06:02:46.494848Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
        "ID": "CVE-2024-28250",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "cilium",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_affected": "=",
                          "version_value": "\u003e= 1.14.0, \u003c 1.14.8"
                        },
                        {
                          "version_affected": "=",
                          "version_value": "\u003e= 1.15.0, \u003c 1.15.2"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "cilium"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. Starting in version 1.14.0 and prior to versions 1.14.8 and 1.15.2, In Cilium clusters with WireGuard enabled and traffic matching Layer 7 policies Wireguard-eligible traffic that is sent between a node\u0027s Envoy proxy and pods on other nodes is sent unencrypted and Wireguard-eligible traffic that is sent between a node\u0027s DNS proxy and pods on other nodes is sent unencrypted. This issue has been resolved in Cilium 1.14.8 and 1.15.2 in in native routing mode (`routingMode=native`) and in Cilium 1.14.4 in tunneling mode (`routingMode=tunnel`). Not that in tunneling mode, `encryption.wireguard.encapsulate` must be set to `true`. There is no known workaround for this issue."
          }
        ]
      },
      "impact": {
        "cvss": [
          {
            "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
            "attackVector": "ADJACENT_NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 6.1,
            "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
            "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "CHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "cweId": "CWE-311",
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "CWE-311: Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-v6q2-4qr3-5cw6",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-v6q2-4qr3-5cw6"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.13.13",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.13.13"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.14.8",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.14.8"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.15.2",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.15.2"
          }
        ]
      },
      "source": {
        "advisory": "GHSA-v6q2-4qr3-5cw6",
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "cve": {
        "descriptions": [
          {
            "lang": "en",
            "value": "Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. Starting in version 1.14.0 and prior to versions 1.14.8 and 1.15.2, In Cilium clusters with WireGuard enabled and traffic matching Layer 7 policies Wireguard-eligible traffic that is sent between a node\u0027s Envoy proxy and pods on other nodes is sent unencrypted and Wireguard-eligible traffic that is sent between a node\u0027s DNS proxy and pods on other nodes is sent unencrypted. This issue has been resolved in Cilium 1.14.8 and 1.15.2 in in native routing mode (`routingMode=native`) and in Cilium 1.14.4 in tunneling mode (`routingMode=tunnel`). Not that in tunneling mode, `encryption.wireguard.encapsulate` must be set to `true`. There is no known workaround for this issue."
          },
          {
            "lang": "es",
            "value": "Cilium es una soluci\u00f3n de redes, observabilidad y seguridad con un plano de datos basado en eBPF. A partir de la versi\u00f3n 1.14.0 y anteriores a las versiones 1.14.8 y 1.15.2, en los cl\u00fasteres de Cilium con WireGuard habilitado y el tr\u00e1fico que coincide con las pol\u00edticas de Capa 7, el tr\u00e1fico elegible para Wireguard que se env\u00eda entre el proxy Envoy de un nodo y los pods de otros nodos se env\u00eda sin cifrar. y el tr\u00e1fico elegible para Wireguard que se env\u00eda entre el proxy DNS de un nodo y los pods de otros nodos se env\u00eda sin cifrar. Este problema se resolvi\u00f3 en Cilium 1.14.8 y 1.15.2 en modo de enrutamiento nativo (`routingMode=native`) y en Cilium 1.14.4 en modo de t\u00fanel (`routingMode=tunnel`). No es que en modo t\u00fanel, `encryption.wireguard.encapsulate` deba establecerse en `true`. No se conoce ning\u00fan workaround para este problema."
          }
        ],
        "id": "CVE-2024-28250",
        "lastModified": "2024-03-19T13:26:46.000",
        "metrics": {
          "cvssMetricV31": [
            {
              "cvssData": {
                "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
                "attackVector": "ADJACENT_NETWORK",
                "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
                "baseScore": 6.1,
                "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
                "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
                "integrityImpact": "NONE",
                "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
                "scope": "CHANGED",
                "userInteraction": "NONE",
                "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
                "version": "3.1"
              },
              "exploitabilityScore": 1.6,
              "impactScore": 4.0,
              "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
              "type": "Secondary"
            }
          ]
        },
        "published": "2024-03-18T22:15:08.750",
        "references": [
          {
            "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
            "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.13.13"
          },
          {
            "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
            "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.14.8"
          },
          {
            "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
            "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/releases/tag/v1.15.2"
          },
          {
            "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
            "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-v6q2-4qr3-5cw6"
          }
        ],
        "sourceIdentifier": "security-advisories@github.com",
        "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis",
        "weaknesses": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "en",
                "value": "CWE-311"
              }
            ],
            "source": "security-advisories@github.com",
            "type": "Secondary"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}


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.