GSD-2020-25688

Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:21
Details
A flaw was found in rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0. Two internal service APIs were incorrectly provisioned using a test certificate from the source repository. This would result in all installations using the same certificates. If an attacker could observe network traffic internal to a cluster, they could use the private key to decode API requests that should be protected by TLS sessions, potentially obtaining information they would not otherwise be able to. These certificates are not used for service authentication, so no opportunity for impersonation or active MITM attacks were made possible.
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2020-25688
To clipboard 

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2020-25688",
    "description": "A flaw was found in rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0. Two internal service APIs were incorrectly provisioned using a test certificate from the source repository. This would result in all installations using the same certificates. If an attacker could observe network traffic internal to a cluster, they could use the private key to decode API requests that should be protected by TLS sessions, potentially obtaining information they would not otherwise be able to. These certificates are not used for service authentication, so no opportunity for impersonation or active MITM attacks were made possible.",
    "id": "GSD-2020-25688",
    "references": [
      "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:5095",
      "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2020:4954"
    ]
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2020-25688"
      ],
      "details": "A flaw was found in rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0. Two internal service APIs were incorrectly provisioned using a test certificate from the source repository. This would result in all installations using the same certificates. If an attacker could observe network traffic internal to a cluster, they could use the private key to decode API requests that should be protected by TLS sessions, potentially obtaining information they would not otherwise be able to. These certificates are not used for service authentication, so no opportunity for impersonation or active MITM attacks were made possible.",
      "id": "GSD-2020-25688",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:21:57.433093Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "secalert@redhat.com",
        "ID": "CVE-2020-25688",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "rhacm",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "All rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "A flaw was found in rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0. Two internal service APIs were incorrectly provisioned using a test certificate from the source repository. This would result in all installations using the same certificates. If an attacker could observe network traffic internal to a cluster, they could use the private key to decode API requests that should be protected by TLS sessions, potentially obtaining information they would not otherwise be able to. These certificates are not used for service authentication, so no opportunity for impersonation or active MITM attacks were made possible."
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "CWE-321"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892551",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892551"
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:redhat:advanced_cluster_management_for_kubernetes:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndExcluding": "2.0.5",
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "secalert@redhat.com",
          "ID": "CVE-2020-25688"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "A flaw was found in rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0. Two internal service APIs were incorrectly provisioned using a test certificate from the source repository. This would result in all installations using the same certificates. If an attacker could observe network traffic internal to a cluster, they could use the private key to decode API requests that should be protected by TLS sessions, potentially obtaining information they would not otherwise be able to. These certificates are not used for service authentication, so no opportunity for impersonation or active MITM attacks were made possible."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-798"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892551",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Issue Tracking",
                "Vendor Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892551"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV2": {
          "acInsufInfo": false,
          "cvssV2": {
            "accessComplexity": "LOW",
            "accessVector": "ADJACENT_NETWORK",
            "authentication": "SINGLE",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 2.7,
            "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "AV:A/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N",
            "version": "2.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 5.1,
          "impactScore": 2.9,
          "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
          "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
          "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
          "severity": "LOW",
          "userInteractionRequired": false
        },
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "ADJACENT_NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 3.5,
            "baseSeverity": "LOW",
            "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 2.1,
          "impactScore": 1.4
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2020-12-08T01:01Z",
      "publishedDate": "2020-11-23T22:15Z"
    }
  }
}


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 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.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.