Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Vulnerability roundup 112: cosign-1.3.0: 1 advisory [3.3] #166626

Closed
1 task
ckauhaus opened this issue Mar 31, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed
1 task

Vulnerability roundup 112: cosign-1.3.0: 1 advisory [3.3] #166626

ckauhaus opened this issue Mar 31, 2022 · 4 comments
Labels
1.severity: security Issues which raise a security issue, or PRs that fix one 2.status: wontfix We cannot or will not fix this issue
Milestone

Comments

@ckauhaus
Copy link
Contributor

search, files

CVE details

CVE-2022-23649

Cosign provides container signing, verification, and storage in an OCI registry for the sigstore project. Prior to version 1.5.2, Cosign can be manipulated to claim that an entry for a signature exists in the Rekor transparency log even if it doesn't. This requires the attacker to have pull and push permissions for the signature in OCI. This can happen with both standard signing with a keypair and "keyless signing" with Fulcio. If an attacker has access to the signature in OCI, they can manipulate cosign into believing the entry was stored in Rekor even though it wasn't. The vulnerability has been patched in v1.5.2 of Cosign. The signature in the signedEntryTimestamp provided by Rekor is now compared to the signature that is being verified. If these don't match, then an error is returned. If a valid bundle is copied to a different signature, verification should fail. Cosign output now only informs the user that certificates were verified if a certificate was in fact verified. There is currently no known workaround.


Scanned versions: nixos-21.11: efea022.

Cc @06kellyjac
Cc @LeSuisse
Cc @kalbasit

@ckauhaus ckauhaus added the 1.severity: security Issues which raise a security issue, or PRs that fix one label Mar 31, 2022
@06kellyjac
Copy link
Member

There are breaking changes between 1.3.0 and 1.6.0

What is the stance on fixing vulns vs keeping 21.11 stable?

@LeSuisse
Copy link
Contributor

Also, I tried to backport only the fix but it is not straightforward. I did not feel comfortable moving forward with a heavily customized patch since it could lead to more serious issues than the existing one.

@mweinelt
Copy link
Member

mweinelt commented Apr 1, 2022

With the precondition being push/pull permissions on the container infrastructure and the resulting low CVSSv3 score of 3.3 I think it's okay to ignore this for release-21.11 if it is problematic to backport in a non-breaking way.

@mweinelt mweinelt added the 2.status: wontfix We cannot or will not fix this issue label Apr 1, 2022
@mweinelt mweinelt added this to the 21.11 milestone Apr 1, 2022
@ckauhaus
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'd also opt for leaving 21.11 as is.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1.severity: security Issues which raise a security issue, or PRs that fix one 2.status: wontfix We cannot or will not fix this issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants