CVE-2021-21378
CVE Descriptions
JWT authentication bypass with unknown issuer token
Envoy is a cloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxy. In Envoy version 1.17.0 an attacker can bypass authentication by presenting a JWT token with an issuer that is not in the provider list when Envoy's JWT Authentication filter is configured with the `allow_missing` requirement under `requires_any` due to a mistake in implementation. Envoy's JWT Authentication filter can be configured with the `allow_missing` requirement that will be satisfied if JWT is missing (JwtMissed error) and fail if JWT is presented or invalid. Due to a mistake in implementation, a JwtUnknownIssuer error was mistakenly converted to JwtMissed when `requires_any` was configured. So if `allow_missing` was configured under `requires_any`, an attacker can bypass authentication by presenting a JWT token with an issuer that is not in the provider list. Integrity may be impacted depending on configuration if the JWT token is used to protect against writes or modifications. This regression was introduced on 2020/11/12 in PR 13839 which fixed handling `allow_missing` under RequiresAny in a JwtRequirement (see issue 13458). The AnyVerifier aggregates the children verifiers' results into a final status where JwtMissing is the default error. However, a JwtUnknownIssuer was mistakenly treated the same as a JwtMissing error and the resulting final aggregation was the default JwtMissing. As a result, `allow_missing` would allow a JWT token with an unknown issuer status. This is fixed in version 1.17.1 by PR 15194. The fix works by preferring JwtUnknownIssuer over a JwtMissing error, fixing the accidental conversion and bypass with `allow_missing`. A user could detect whether a bypass occurred if they have Envoy logs enabled with debug verbosity. Users can enable component level debug logs for JWT. The JWT filter logs will indicate that there is a request with a JWT token and a failure that the JWT token is missing.CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Improper Authentication When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct. |
||
| Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 8.2 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
More informations
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. 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. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an 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 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. 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 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. Low Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no impact to availability within the impacted component. 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. |
|
| V2 | 6.4 | AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N | nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Envoyproxy>>Envoy >> Version 1.17.0
- Envoyproxy>>Envoy >> Version 1.17.0 (Open CPE detail)
References
Tags : x_refsource_CONFIRM
Tags : x_refsource_MISC
