CVE-2025-40362
13h40 +00:00
CVE 설명
ceph: fix multifs mds auth caps issue
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: fix multifs mds auth caps issue The mds auth caps check should also validate the fsname along with the associated caps. Not doing so would result in applying the mds auth caps of one fs on to the other fs in a multifs ceph cluster. The bug causes multiple issues w.r.t user authentication, following is one such example. Steps to Reproduce (on vstart cluster): 1. Create two file systems in a cluster, say 'fsname1' and 'fsname2' 2. Authorize read only permission to the user 'client.usr' on fs 'fsname1' $ceph fs authorize fsname1 client.usr / r 3. Authorize read and write permission to the same user 'client.usr' on fs 'fsname2' $ceph fs authorize fsname2 client.usr / rw 4. Update the keyring $ceph auth get client.usr >> ./keyring With above permssions for the user 'client.usr', following is the expectation. a. The 'client.usr' should be able to only read the contents and not allowed to create or delete files on file system 'fsname1'. b. The 'client.usr' should be able to read/write on file system 'fsname2'. But, with this bug, the 'client.usr' is allowed to read/write on file system 'fsname1'. See below. 5. Mount the file system 'fsname1' with the user 'client.usr' $sudo bin/mount.ceph usr@.fsname1=/ /kmnt_fsname1_usr/ 6. Try creating a file on file system 'fsname1' with user 'client.usr'. This should fail but passes with this bug. $touch /kmnt_fsname1_usr/file1 7. Mount the file system 'fsname1' with the user 'client.admin' and create a file. $sudo bin/mount.ceph admin@.fsname1=/ /kmnt_fsname1_admin $echo "data" > /kmnt_fsname1_admin/admin_file1 8. Try removing an existing file on file system 'fsname1' with the user 'client.usr'. This shoudn't succeed but succeeds with the bug. $rm -f /kmnt_fsname1_usr/admin_file1 For more information, please take a look at the corresponding mds/fuse patch and tests added by looking into the tracker mentioned below. v2: Fix a possible null dereference in doutc v3: Don't store fsname from mdsmap, validate against ceph_mount_options's fsname and use it v4: Code refactor, better warning message and fix possible compiler warning [ Slava.Dubeyko: "fsname check failed" -> "fsname mismatch" ]CVE 정보
메트릭
| 메트릭 | 점수 | 심각도 | CVSS 벡터 | 출처 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 8.8 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
추가 정보
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Changed An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
