Skip to content

Incorrect delegation lookups can make go-tuf download the wrong artifact

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 1, 2024 in theupdateframework/go-tuf • Updated Oct 11, 2024

Package

gomod github.com/theupdateframework/go-tuf/v2 (Go)

Affected versions

< 2.0.1

Patched versions

2.0.1

Description

During the ongoing work on the TUF conformance test suite, we have come across a test that reveals what we believe is a bug in go-tuf with security implications. The bug exists in go-tuf delegation tracing and could result in downloading the wrong artifact.

We have come across this issue in the test in this PR: theupdateframework/tuf-conformance#115.

The test - test_graph_traversal - sets up a repository with a series of delegations, invokes the clients refresh() and then checks the order in which the client traced the delegations. The test shows that the go-tuf client inconsistently traces the delegations in a wrong way. For example, during one CI run, the two-level-delegations test case triggered a wrong order. The delegations in this look as such:

"two-level-delegations": DelegationsTestCase(
        delegations=[
            DelegationTester("targets", "A"),
            DelegationTester("targets", "B"),
            DelegationTester("B", "C"),
        ],
        visited_order=["A", "B", "C"],
    ),

Here, targets delegate to "A", and to "B", and "B" delegates to "C". The client should trace the delegations in the order "A" then "B" then "C" but in this particular CI run, go-tuf traced the delegations "B"->"C"->"A".

In a subsequent CI run, this test case did not fail, but another one did.

@jku has done a bit of debugging and believes that the returned map of GetRolesForTarget returns a map that causes this behavior:

https://github.com/theupdateframework/go-tuf/blob/f95222bdd22d2ac4e5b8ed6fe912b645e213c3b5/metadata/metadata.go#L565-L580

We believe that this map should be an ordered list instead of a map.

References

@rdimitrov rdimitrov published to theupdateframework/go-tuf Oct 1, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Oct 1, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 1, 2024
Reviewed Oct 1, 2024
Last updated Oct 11, 2024

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

0.045%
(17th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2024-47534

GHSA ID

GHSA-4f8r-qqr9-fq8j

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.