GSD-2020-15104
Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:21Details
In Envoy before versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, and 1.15.0 when validating TLS certificates, Envoy would incorrectly allow a wildcard DNS Subject Alternative Name apply to multiple subdomains. For example, with a SAN of *.example.com, Envoy would incorrectly allow nested.subdomain.example.com, when it should only allow subdomain.example.com. This defect applies to both validating a client TLS certificate in mTLS, and validating a server TLS certificate for upstream connections. This vulnerability is only applicable to situations where an untrusted entity can obtain a signed wildcard TLS certificate for a domain of which you only intend to trust a subdomain of. For example, if you intend to trust api.mysubdomain.example.com, and an untrusted actor can obtain a signed TLS certificate for *.example.com or *.com. Configurations are vulnerable if they use verify_subject_alt_name in any Envoy version, or if they use match_subject_alt_names in version 1.14 or later. This issue has been fixed in Envoy versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, 1.15.0.
Aliases
Aliases
{
"GSD": {
"alias": "CVE-2020-15104",
"description": "In Envoy before versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, and 1.15.0 when validating TLS certificates, Envoy would incorrectly allow a wildcard DNS Subject Alternative Name apply to multiple subdomains. For example, with a SAN of *.example.com, Envoy would incorrectly allow nested.subdomain.example.com, when it should only allow subdomain.example.com. This defect applies to both validating a client TLS certificate in mTLS, and validating a server TLS certificate for upstream connections. This vulnerability is only applicable to situations where an untrusted entity can obtain a signed wildcard TLS certificate for a domain of which you only intend to trust a subdomain of. For example, if you intend to trust api.mysubdomain.example.com, and an untrusted actor can obtain a signed TLS certificate for *.example.com or *.com. Configurations are vulnerable if they use verify_subject_alt_name in any Envoy version, or if they use match_subject_alt_names in version 1.14 or later. This issue has been fixed in Envoy versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, 1.15.0.",
"id": "GSD-2020-15104",
"references": [
"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2020-15104.html",
"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:3090",
"https://linux.oracle.com/cve/CVE-2020-15104.html"
]
},
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-15104"
],
"details": "In Envoy before versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, and 1.15.0 when validating TLS certificates, Envoy would incorrectly allow a wildcard DNS Subject Alternative Name apply to multiple subdomains. For example, with a SAN of *.example.com, Envoy would incorrectly allow nested.subdomain.example.com, when it should only allow subdomain.example.com. This defect applies to both validating a client TLS certificate in mTLS, and validating a server TLS certificate for upstream connections. This vulnerability is only applicable to situations where an untrusted entity can obtain a signed wildcard TLS certificate for a domain of which you only intend to trust a subdomain of. For example, if you intend to trust api.mysubdomain.example.com, and an untrusted actor can obtain a signed TLS certificate for *.example.com or *.com. Configurations are vulnerable if they use verify_subject_alt_name in any Envoy version, or if they use match_subject_alt_names in version 1.14 or later. This issue has been fixed in Envoy versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, 1.15.0.",
"id": "GSD-2020-15104",
"modified": "2023-12-13T01:21:43.371373Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
"ID": "CVE-2020-15104",
"STATE": "PUBLIC",
"TITLE": "TLS Validation Vulnerability in Envoy"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "envoy",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "\u003c 1.12.6"
},
{
"version_value": "\u003e= 1.13.0, \u003c 1.13.4"
},
{
"version_value": "\u003e= 1.14.0, \u003c 1.14.4"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "envoyproxy"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "In Envoy before versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, and 1.15.0 when validating TLS certificates, Envoy would incorrectly allow a wildcard DNS Subject Alternative Name apply to multiple subdomains. For example, with a SAN of *.example.com, Envoy would incorrectly allow nested.subdomain.example.com, when it should only allow subdomain.example.com. This defect applies to both validating a client TLS certificate in mTLS, and validating a server TLS certificate for upstream connections. This vulnerability is only applicable to situations where an untrusted entity can obtain a signed wildcard TLS certificate for a domain of which you only intend to trust a subdomain of. For example, if you intend to trust api.mysubdomain.example.com, and an untrusted actor can obtain a signed TLS certificate for *.example.com or *.com. Configurations are vulnerable if they use verify_subject_alt_name in any Envoy version, or if they use match_subject_alt_names in version 1.14 or later. This issue has been fixed in Envoy versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, 1.15.0."
}
]
},
"impact": {
"cvss": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 4.6,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "CWE-346: Origin Validation Error"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/security/advisories/GHSA-w5f5-6qhq-hhrg",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/security/advisories/GHSA-w5f5-6qhq-hhrg"
}
]
},
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-w5f5-6qhq-hhrg",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
}
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"configurations": {
"CVE_data_version": "4.0",
"nodes": [
{
"children": [],
"cpe_match": [
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:envoyproxy:envoy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"versionEndExcluding": "1.12.6",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:envoyproxy:envoy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"versionEndExcluding": "1.13.4",
"versionStartIncluding": "1.13.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:envoyproxy:envoy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"versionEndExcluding": "1.14.4",
"versionStartIncluding": "1.14.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
]
},
"cve": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
"ID": "CVE-2020-15104"
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In Envoy before versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, and 1.15.0 when validating TLS certificates, Envoy would incorrectly allow a wildcard DNS Subject Alternative Name apply to multiple subdomains. For example, with a SAN of *.example.com, Envoy would incorrectly allow nested.subdomain.example.com, when it should only allow subdomain.example.com. This defect applies to both validating a client TLS certificate in mTLS, and validating a server TLS certificate for upstream connections. This vulnerability is only applicable to situations where an untrusted entity can obtain a signed wildcard TLS certificate for a domain of which you only intend to trust a subdomain of. For example, if you intend to trust api.mysubdomain.example.com, and an untrusted actor can obtain a signed TLS certificate for *.example.com or *.com. Configurations are vulnerable if they use verify_subject_alt_name in any Envoy version, or if they use match_subject_alt_names in version 1.14 or later. This issue has been fixed in Envoy versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, 1.15.0."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-346"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/security/advisories/GHSA-w5f5-6qhq-hhrg",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/security/advisories/GHSA-w5f5-6qhq-hhrg"
}
]
}
},
"impact": {
"baseMetricV2": {
"acInsufInfo": false,
"cvssV2": {
"accessComplexity": "LOW",
"accessVector": "NETWORK",
"authentication": "SINGLE",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.5,
"confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL",
"integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
"vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:N",
"version": "2.0"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 8.0,
"impactScore": 4.9,
"obtainAllPrivilege": false,
"obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
"obtainUserPrivilege": false,
"severity": "MEDIUM",
"userInteractionRequired": false
},
"baseMetricV3": {
"cvssV3": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.4,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
"impactScore": 2.5
}
},
"lastModifiedDate": "2020-07-21T13:44Z",
"publishedDate": "2020-07-14T22:15Z"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.
Loading…