Skip to content

Cilium's CIDR deny policies may not take effect when a more narrow CIDR allow is present

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 21, 2024 in cilium/cilium • Updated Nov 1, 2024

Package

gomod github.com/cilium/cilium (Go)

Affected versions

>= 1.15.0, < 1.15.10
>= 1.14.0, < 1.14.16

Patched versions

1.15.10
1.14.16

Description

Impact

A policy rule denying a prefix that is broader than /32 may be ignored if there is

  • A policy rule referencing a more narrow prefix (CIDRSet or toFQDN) and
  • This narrower policy rule specifies either enableDefaultDeny: false or - toEntities: all

Note that a rule specifying toEntities: world or toEntities: 0.0.0.0/0 is insufficient, it must be to entity all.

As an example, given the below policies, traffic is allowed to 1.1.1.2, when it should be denied:

apiVersion: cilium.io/v2
kind: CiliumClusterwideNetworkPolicy
metadata:
  name: block-scary-range
spec:
  endpointSelector: {}
  egressDeny:
  - toCIDRSet:
    - cidr: 1.0.0.0/8

---

apiVersion: cilium.io/v2
kind: CiliumNetworkPolicy
metadata:
  name: evade-deny
spec:
  endpointSelector: {}
  egress:
  - toCIDR:
    - 1.1.1.2/32
  - toEntities:
    - all

Patches

This issue affects:

  • Cilium v1.14 between v1.14.0 and v1.14.15 inclusive
  • Cilium v1.15 between v1.15.0 and v1.15.9 inclusive

This issue has been patched in:

  • Cilium v1.14.16
  • Cilium v1.15.10

Workarounds

Users with policies using enableDefaultDeny: false can work around this issue by removing this configuration option and explicitly defining any allow rules required.

No workaround is available to users with egress policies that explicitly specify toEntities: all.

Acknowledgements

The Cilium community has worked together with members of Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @squeed, @christarazi, and @jrajahalme for their work in triaging and resolving this issue.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on Slack.

If you think you have found a vulnerability affecting Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our security mailing list at [email protected]. This is a private mailing list for the Cilium security team, and your report will be treated with top priority.

References

@ferozsalam ferozsalam published to cilium/cilium Oct 21, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 21, 2024
Reviewed Oct 21, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Oct 21, 2024
Last updated Nov 1, 2024

Severity

Moderate

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

0.043%
(11th percentile)

CVE ID

CVE-2024-47825

GHSA ID

GHSA-3wwx-63fv-pfq6

Source code

Credits

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