CVE 설명

Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Apache Camel Spring Redis component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 2.11.0 before 4.18.5, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.1. RedisConfiguration.getSerializer lazily built a bare JdkSerializationRedisSerializer whenever no serializer option was configured, and that instance was used for every read the component performs. Spring's implementation delegates through DeserializingConverter to DefaultDeserializer, which reads the bytes with a ConfigurableObjectInputStream and installs no java.io.ObjectInputFilter on the stream, so an arbitrary serialized class graph was materialised and its readObject method executed. RedisConsumer.setBody applied that serializer to the raw bytes of every message published to the subscribed channels, before the Exchange was constructed and therefore before any route logic could inspect the message, so an actor able to issue PUBLISH on a subscribed channel reached the deserialization sink directly. The same default serializer backed the RedisTemplate built by RedisConfiguration.createDefaultTemplate, so the producer read commands GET, HGET, HGETALL and HVALS deserialized whatever was stored in the Redis keyspace, and SpringRedisIdempotentRepository shared that template. Configuring a custom redisTemplate did not close the consumer path, because RedisConsumer.setBody reads getSerializer directly rather than the serializer attached to the template, so a deployment that had wired a String serializer into its own template remained exposed on the consumer side unless it also set the serializer option. The component never constructed a java.io.ObjectInputStream itself, which is why earlier passes over the Camel codebase for unfiltered Java deserialization did not reach it. The behaviour dates back to the introduction of the component, first released in 2.11.0, and was unchanged until this fix. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.23.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.22.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.22.1. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.5. The 4.14.x releases stream and earlier reached end of life before this issue was resolved and will not receive a fix, so deployments on those lines must move to a supported release. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, set the JVM-wide jdk.serialFilter system property, which the affected code path honours because it reads through a java.io.ObjectInputStream, for example -Djdk.serialFilter=!java.net.**;java.**;javax.**;org.apache.camel.**;!* ; or set the serializer endpoint option to a serializer that does not use Java serialization, such as StringRedisSerializer, noting that this must be set as the serializer option and not only on a custom redisTemplate. As defence in depth, require authentication on the Redis instance and restrict which clients may publish to the subscribed channels, and do not expose a Redis instance consumed by Camel to untrusted networks.

CVE 정보

관련 약점

CWE-ID	약점 이름	출처
CWE-502	Deserialization of Untrusted Data The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.

메트릭

메트릭	점수	심각도	CVSS 벡터	출처
V3.1	8.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H 추가 정보 Base: Exploitabilty Metrics The 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. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). 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 Metrics The 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. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact Metrics The 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 Metrics The 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 Metrics These 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.	security@apache.org