Vulnerabilities > CVE-2014-0167 - Permissions, Privileges, and Access Controls vulnerability in Openstack Compute and Icehouse

047910
CVSS 0.0 - NONE
Attack vector
UNKNOWN
Attack complexity
UNKNOWN
Privileges required
UNKNOWN
Confidentiality impact
UNKNOWN
Integrity impact
UNKNOWN
Availability impact
UNKNOWN

Summary

The Nova EC2 API security group implementation in OpenStack Compute (Nova) 2013.1 before 2013.2.4 and icehouse before icehouse-rc2 does not enforce RBAC policies for (1) add_rules, (2) remove_rules, (3) destroy, and other unspecified methods in compute/api.py when using non-default policies, which allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges via these API requests.

Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)

  • Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files, when the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high. The attack can be directed at a client system, such as causing buffer overrun through loading seemingly benign image files, as in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028 where specially crafted JPEG files could cause a buffer overrun once loaded into the browser. Another example targets clients reading pdf files. In this case the attacker simply appends javascript to the end of a legitimate url for a pdf (http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/danger-danger-danger/) http://path/to/pdf/file.pdf#whatever_name_you_want=javascript:your_code_here The client assumes that they are reading a pdf, but the attacker has modified the resource and loaded executable javascript into the client's browser process. The attack can also target server processes. The attacker edits the resource or configuration file, for example a web.xml file used to configure security permissions for a J2EE app server, adding role name "public" grants all users with the public role the ability to use the administration functionality. The server trusts its configuration file to be correct, but when they are manipulated, the attacker gains full control.
  • Blue Boxing
    This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
  • Restful Privilege Elevation
    Rest uses standard HTTP (Get, Put, Delete) style permissions methods, but these are not necessarily correlated generally with back end programs. Strict interpretation of HTTP get methods means that these HTTP Get services should not be used to delete information on the server, but there is no access control mechanism to back up this logic. This means that unless the services are properly ACL'd and the application's service implementation are following these guidelines then an HTTP request can easily execute a delete or update on the server side. The attacker identifies a HTTP Get URL such as http://victimsite/updateOrder, which calls out to a program to update orders on a database or other resource. The URL is not idempotent so the request can be submitted multiple times by the attacker, additionally, the attacker may be able to exploit the URL published as a Get method that actually performs updates (instead of merely retrieving data). This may result in malicious or inadvertent altering of data on the server.
  • Target Programs with Elevated Privileges
    This attack targets programs running with elevated privileges. The attacker would try to leverage a bug in the running program and get arbitrary code to execute with elevated privileges. For instance an attacker would look for programs that write to the system directories or registry keys (such as HKLM, which stores a number of critical Windows environment variables). These programs are typically running with elevated privileges and have usually not been designed with security in mind. Such programs are excellent exploit targets because they yield lots of power when they break. The malicious user try to execute its code at the same level as a privileged system call.

Nessus

  • NASL familyFedora Local Security Checks
    NASL idFEDORA_2014-7954.NASL
    descriptionAdd RBAC policy for ec2 API security groups calls - CVE-2014-0167 Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Fedora security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen2020-03-17
    modified2014-07-14
    plugin id76479
    published2014-07-14
    reporterThis script is Copyright (C) 2014-2020 Tenable Network Security, Inc.
    sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/76479
    titleFedora 20 : openstack-nova-2013.2.3-2.fc20 (2014-7954)
  • NASL familyUbuntu Local Security Checks
    NASL idUBUNTU_USN-2247-1.NASL
    descriptionDarragh O
    last seen2020-06-01
    modified2020-06-02
    plugin id76109
    published2014-06-18
    reporterUbuntu Security Notice (C) 2014-2019 Canonical, Inc. / NASL script (C) 2014-2019 and is owned by Tenable, Inc. or an Affiliate thereof.
    sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/76109
    titleUbuntu 12.04 LTS / 13.10 / 14.04 LTS : nova vulnerabilities (USN-2247-1)

Redhat

rpms
  • openstack-nova-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-api-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-cells-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-cert-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-common-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-compute-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-conductor-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-console-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-doc-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-network-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-novncproxy-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-objectstore-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • openstack-nova-scheduler-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost
  • python-nova-0:2013.2.3-12.el6ost

Seebug

bulletinFamilyexploit
descriptionBugtraq ID:65753 CVE ID:CVE-2014-0167 OpenStack是由Rackspace和NASA共同开发的云计算平台,帮助服务商和企业内部实现类似于Amazon EC2和S3的云基础架构。OpenStack Nova提供虚拟计算服务。 OpenStack Nova EC2 API安全组实现存在安全漏洞,如add_rules, remove_rules 和destroy方法,受限用户可使用EC2 API绕过限制对安全组进行未授权操作。 0 OpenStack Nova 2013.1 - 2013.2.3 用户可参考如下厂商提供的安全补丁以修复该漏洞: https://review.openstack.org/86358 https://review.openstack.org/86360 https://review.openstack.org/86361
idSSV:62201
last seen2017-11-19
modified2014-04-16
published2014-04-16
reporterRoot
titleOpenStack Nova RBAC安全绕过漏洞