Vulnerability type Cryptography Detail The TLS ciphers list supported by etcd by default contains weak ciphers. Workarounds Provide a desired ciphers using the –cipher-suites flag as described with examples in the security documentation References Find out more on this vulnerability in the security audit report For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: Contact the etcd security committee
Vulnerability type Cryptography Workarounds Refer to the gateway documentation. The vulnerability was spotted due to unclear documentation of how the gateway handles endpoints validation. Detail Secure endpoint validation is performed by the etcd gateway start command when the –discovery-srv flag is enabled. However, as currently implemented, it only validates TCP reachability, effectively allowing connections to an endpoint that does not accept TLS connections through the HTTPS URL. The auditors has …
Impact Data Validation Detail The parseCompactionRetention function in embed/etcd.go allows the retention variable value to be negative and causes the node to execute the history compaction in a loop, taking more CPU than usual and spamming logs. References Find out more on this vulnerability in the security audit report For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: Contact the etcd security committee
Vulnerability type Logging Detail etcd users who have no password can authenticate only through a client certificate. When such users try to authenticate into etcd using the Authenticate endpoint, errors are logged with insufficient information regarding why the authentication failed, and may be misleading when auditing etcd logs. References Find out more on this vulnerability in the security audit report For more information If you have any questions or comments …
In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, the etcd gateway is a simple TCP proxy to allow for basic service discovery and access. However, it is possible to include the gateway address as an endpoint. This results in a denial of service, since the endpoint can become stuck in a loop of requesting itself until there are no more available file descriptors to accept connections on the gateway.
In ectd before versions 3.4.10 and 3.3.23, gateway TLS authentication is only applied to endpoints detected in DNS SRV records. When starting a gateway, TLS authentication will only be attempted on endpoints identified in DNS SRV records for a given domain, which occurs in the discoverEndpoints function. No authentication is performed against endpoints provided in the –endpoints flag. This has been fixed in versions 3.4.10 and 3.3.23 with improved documentation …
Etcd v3.5.4 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via function PageWriter.write in pagewriter.go
Authentication vulnerability found in Etcd-io v.3.4.10 allows remote attackers to escalate privileges via the debug function.
In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, a large slice causes panic in decodeRecord method. The size of a record is stored in the length field of a WAL file and no additional validation is done on this data. Therefore, it is possible to forge an extremely large frame size that can unintentionally panic at the expense of any RAFT participant trying to decode the WAL.
etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10 does not perform any password length validation, which allows for very short passwords, such as those with a length of one. This may allow an attacker to guess or brute-force users' passwords with little computational effort.
In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the number of entries in the ReadAll method in wal/wal.go. This could cause issues when WAL entries are being read during consensus as an arbitrary etcd consensus participant could go down from a runtime panic when reading the entry.
The vulnerability was spotted due to unclear documentation of how the gateway handles endpoints validation. Detail The gateway only authenticates endpoints detected from DNS SRV records, and it only authenticates the detected endpoints once.
The etcd assumes that the on disk files are secure. The possible fixes have been provided, however, it is the responsibility of the etcd users to make sure that the etcd server WAL log files are secure.
When an etcd instance attempts to perform service discovery, if a cluster size is provided as a negative value, the etcd instance will panic without recovery.
etcd versions 3.2.x before 3.2.26 and 3.3.x before 3.3.11 is vulnerable to an improper authentication issue when role-based access control (RBAC) is used and client-cert-auth is enabled. If an etcd client server TLS certificate contains a Common Name (CN) which matches a valid RBAC username, a remote attacker may authenticate as that user with any valid (trusted) client certificate in a REST API request to the gRPC-gateway.
DNS rebinding vulnerability found in etcd 3.3.1 and earlier. An attacker can control his DNS records to direct to localhost, and trick the browser into sending requests to localhost (or any other address).
etcd versions 3.2.x before 3.2.26 and 3.3.x before 3.3.11 is vulnerable to an improper authentication issue when role-based access control (RBAC) is used and client-cert-auth is enabled. If an etcd client server TLS certificate contains a Common Name (CN) which matches a valid RBAC username, a remote attacker may authenticate as that user with any valid (trusted) client certificate in a REST API request to the gRPC-gateway.
A cross-site request forgery flaw was found in etcd 3.3.1 and earlier. An attacker can set up a website that tries to send a POST request to the etcd server and modify a key. Adding a key is done with PUT so it is theoretically safe (can't PUT from an HTML form or such) but POST allows creating in-order keys that an attacker can send.
A cross-site request forgery flaw was found in etcd 3.3.1 and earlier. An attacker can set up a website that tries to send a POST request to the etcd server and modify a key. Adding a key is done with PUT so it is theoretically safe (can't PUT from an HTML form or such) but POST allows creating in-order keys that an attacker can send.