CVE-2022-0532
Public on
Last Modified:
Description
An incorrect sysctls validation vulnerability was found in CRI-O. The sysctls from the list of "safe" sysctls specified for the cluster [0] will be applied to the host if an attacker can create a pod with a hostIPC and hostNetwork kernel namespace.
Statement
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform (OCP) uses a vulnerable version of CRI-O, but a successful exploit requires access to at least hostnetwork SCC (Security Context Constraints) or privileged SCC. The default restricted SCC blocks this vulnerability.
Additional Information
- This content is not included.Bugzilla 2051730: cri-o: pod with access to 'hostIPC' and 'hostNetwork' kernel namespace allows sysctl from the list of safe sysctls to be applied to the host
- Content from cwe.mitre.org is not included.CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
- FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2022-0532
- Offline Security Data data is available for integration with other systems. See Offline Security Data API to get started.
External References
Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-0532
Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-0532
Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata
| Products / Services | Components | State | Errata |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 3.11 | cri-o | Out of support scope | |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.10 | cri-o | Fixed | RHSA-2022:0055 |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.6 | cri-o | Fixed | RHSA-2022:0866 |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.7 | cri-o | Fixed | RHSA-2022:0870 |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.8 | cri-o | Fixed | RHBA-2022:0793 |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.9 | cri-o | Fixed | RHBA-2022:0794 |
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authorities (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications ).
| CVSS v3 Score Breakdown | Red Hat | NVD |
|---|---|---|
| CVSS v3 Base Score | 4.2 | 4.2 |
| Attack Vector | Network | Network |
| Attack Complexity | High | High |
| Privileges Required | Low | Low |
| User Interaction | None | None |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality Impact | Low | Low |
| Integrity Impact | None | None |
| Availability Impact | Low | Low |
CVSS v3 Vector
Red Hat CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
NVD CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
Red Hat CVSS v3 Score Explanation
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control (creating a pod with a hostIPC and hostNetwork kernel namespace). Therefore the Attack Complexity (AC) metric has been set to High.
An attacker must be able to use the target environment and be able to create necessary pods, therefore the Privileges Required metric has been set to Low.
This vulnerability does not have direct impact on the Integrity of the data, because it is related to the "safe" sysctls specified for the cluster (Content from kubernetes.io is not included.https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/sysctl-cluster/#enabling-unsafe-sysctls), but might have impact to the Confidentiality and Availability of the target environment. Therefore the Integrity metric is None. Because an attacker does not have control over what information is obtained and is not able to completely deny the service, the Confidentiality and Availability metrics are Low.
Acknowledgements
This issue was discovered by Peter Hunt (Red Hat).
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?
For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.
My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?
- "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
- "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.
What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?
Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
- Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
- Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
- Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?
Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
- Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
- Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
- Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.
What is a mitigation?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.