## Duplicate Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-mh98-763h-m9v4. This link is maintained to preserve external references.

## Original Description
JUJU_CONTEXT_ID is a predictable authentication secret. On a Juju machine (non-Kubernetes) or Juju charm container (on Kubernetes), an unprivileged user in the same network namespace can connect to an abstract domain socket and guess the JUJU_CONTEXT_ID value. This gives the unprivileged user access to the same information and tools as the Juju charm.

1.  GitHub Advisory Database
2.  GitHub Reviewed
3.  GHSA-phh4-3hmm-24rx

**Duplicate Advisory: Juju makes Use of Weak Credentials**

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 2, 2024 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Oct 2, 2024

Withdrawn This advisory was withdrawn on Oct 2, 2024

**Package**

gomod github.com/juju/juju (Go)

**Affected versions**

< 0.0.0-20241001032836-2af7bd8e310b

**Patched versions**

0.0.0-20241001032836-2af7bd8e310b

Published by the National Vulnerability Database

Oct 2, 2024

Published to the GitHub Advisory Database

Oct 2, 2024

GHSA-phh4-3hmm-24rx: Duplicate Advisory: Juju makes Use of Weak Credentials

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-7443-03 - Updated images are now available for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. The updated image includes security and bug fixes.

The following advisory data is extracted from:

https://access.redhat.com/security/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_7443.json

Red Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.

- Packet Storm Staff

====================================================================  
Red Hat Security Advisory

Synopsis:           Moderate: RHACS 4.5 enhancement and security update  
Advisory ID:        RHSA-2024:7443-03  
Product:            Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes  
Advisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:7443  
Issue date:         2024-10-01  
Revision:           03  
CVE Names:          CVE-2024-39249  
====================================================================

Summary: 

Updated images are now available for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes (RHACS). The updated image includes security and bug fixes.

Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact  
of Moderate. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score,  
which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability  
from the CVE link(s) in the References section.

Description:

This release of RHACS 4.5.3 includes the security fix for the following CVE:

* (CVE-2024-39249) Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity

For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

This release of RHACS includes the following updates:

* Fixed a broken pipe error that caused the Central UI dashboard to display incomplete data.  
* Added a new `--with-database-only` option to the `roxctl central debug download-diagnostics` command. Use it to generate diagnostic bundles for troubleshooting connection issues related to policy violations and deployments.

Solution:

CVEs:

CVE-2024-39249

References:

https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#moderate  
https://docs.openshift.com/acs/4.5/release_notes/45-release-notes.html  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2295035  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ROX-26409

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-7443-03

Cybersecurity researchers have uncovered a new cryptojacking campaign targeting the Docker Engine API with the goal of co-opting the instances to join a malicious Docker Swarm controlled by the threat actor.
This enabled the attackers to "use Docker Swarm's orchestration features for command-and-control (C2) purposes," Datadog researchers Matt Muir and Andy Giron said in an analysis.
The attacks

Cybersecurity researchers have uncovered a new cryptojacking campaign targeting the Docker Engine API with the goal of co-opting the instances to join a malicious Docker Swarm controlled by the threat actor.

This enabled the attackers to "use Docker Swarm's orchestration features for command-and-control (C2) purposes," Datadog researchers Matt Muir and Andy Giron said in an analysis.

The attacks leverage Docker for initial access to deploy a cryptocurrency miner on compromised containers, while also fetching and executing additional payloads that are responsible for conducting lateral movement to related hosts running Docker, Kubernetes, or SSH.

Specifically, this involves identifying unauthenticated and exposed Docker API endpoints using Internet scanning tools, such as masscan and ZGrab.

On vulnerable endpoints, the Docker API is used to spawn an Alpine container and then retrieve an initialization shell script (init.sh) from a remote server ("solscan\[.\]live") that, in turn, checks if it's running as the root user and tools like curl and wget are installed before downloading the XMRig miner.

Like other cryptojacking campaigns, it makes use of the libprocesshider rootkit to hide the malicious miner process from the user when running process enumerating tools like top and ps.

The shell script is also designed to fetch three other shell scripts – kube.lateral.sh, spread\_docker\_local.sh, and spread\_ssh.sh – from the same server for lateral movement to Docker, Kubernetes, and SSH endpoints on the network.

Spread\_docker\_local.sh "uses masscan and zgrab to scan the same LAN ranges \[...\] for nodes with ports 2375, 2376, 2377, 4244, and 4243 open," the researchers said. "These ports are associated with either Docker Engine or Docker Swarm."

"For any IPs discovered with the target ports open, the malware attempts to spawn a new container with the name alpine. This container is based on an image named upspin, hosted on Docker Hub by the user nmlmweb3."

The upspin image is designed to execute the aforementioned init.sh script, thus allowing the group's malware to propagate in a worm-like fashion to other Docker hosts.

What's more, the Docker image tag that's used to retrieve the image from Docker Hub is specified in a text file hosted on the C2 server, thereby allowing the threat actors to easily recover from potential takedowns by simply changing the file contents to point to a different container image.

The third shell script, spread\_ssh.sh, is capable of compromising SSH servers, as well as adding an SSH key and a new user named ftp that enables the threat actors to remotely connect to the hosts and maintain persistent access.

It also searches for various credential files related to SSH, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud, and Samba in hard-coded file paths within the GitHub Codespaces environment (i.e., the "/home/codespace/" directory), and if found, uploads them to the C2 server.

In the final stage, both the Kubernetes and SSH lateral movement payloads execute another shell script called setup\_mr.sh that retrieves and launches the cryptocurrency miner.

Datadog said it also discovered three other scripts hosted on the C2 server -

*   ar.sh, a variant of init.sh that modifies iptables rules and clears logs and cron jobs to evade detection
*   TDGINIT.sh, which downloads scanning tools and drops a malicious container on each identified Docker host
*   pdflushs.sh, which installs a persistent backdoor by appending a threat-actor-controlled SSH key to the /root/.ssh/authorized\_keys file

TDGINIT.sh is also notable for its manipulation of Docker Swarm by forcing the host to leave any existing Swarm it may be part of and add it to a new Swarm under the attacker's control.

"This allows the threat actor to expand their control over multiple Docker instances in a coordinated fashion, effectively turning compromised systems into a botnet for further exploitation," the researchers said.

It's currently not clear who is behind the attack campaign, although the tactics, techniques, and procedures exhibited overlap with those of a known threat group known as TeamTNT.

"This campaign demonstrates that services such as Docker and Kubernetes remain fruitful for threat actors conducting cryptojacking at scale," Datadog said.

"The campaign relies on Docker API endpoints being exposed to the Internet without authentication. The malware's ability to propagate rapidly means that even if the chances of initial access are relatively slim, the rewards are high enough to keep cloud-focused malware groups motivated enough to continue conducting these attacks."

The development comes as Elastic Security Labs shed light on a sophisticated Linux malware campaign targeting vulnerable Apache servers to establish persistence via GSocket and deploy malware families such as Kaiji and RUDEDEVIL (aka Lucifer) that facilitate distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and cryptocurrency mining, respectively.

"The REF6138 campaign involved cryptomining, DDoS attacks, and potential money laundering via gambling APIs, highlighting the attackers' use of evolving malware and stealthy communication channels," researchers Remco Sprooten and Ruben Groenewoud said.

Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter __ and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

New Cryptojacking Attack Targets Docker API to Create Malicious Swarm Botnet

As Superman has kryptonite, software has weaknesses — with misconfigurations leading the pack.

Mark Troester, Vice President of Strategy, Progress

September 27, 2024

4 Min Read

Source: Borka Kiss via Alamy Stock Photo

COMMENTARY

The convergence of rising cyber threats, advanced artificial intelligence (AI), remote work, and hybrid infrastructures presents significant cybersecurity challenges in today's IT landscape. As a result, it's necessary to make your endpoints, cloud infrastructure, and remote access channels more secure. As cyber adversaries adopt new tactics, organizations worldwide respond by expanding the use of continuous threat exposure management (CTEM) systems, investing in robust security solutions, and leveraging cross-functional collaboration to mitigate risks and safeguard digital assets effectively.

But like Superman has kryptonite, even the best software has weaknesses, with misconfigurations leading the pack.

Consider this: Microsoft research indicates that a staggering 80% of ransomware attacks can be attributed to common configuration errors in software and devices. 

Misconfigurations now hold an unenviable fifth place on the Open Worldwide Application Security Project Top 10 — a crucial vulnerability reference for the cybersecurity community. OWASP found 208,000 occurrences of common weakness enumeration (CWE) within 90% of applications tested for misconfiguration, highlighting the widespread nature of this vulnerability.

OWASP says, "Without a concerted, repeatable application security configuration process, systems are at a higher risk."

With this evidence, it's no wonder that organizations are paying more attention to "misconfigurations."

**Picture This ... **

You're sitting down with your morning cuppa and stories of a data leak hit the headlines. The company affected is a leading insurance firm, and the personal information of thousands of customers has been made available on the Internet for months. With a little research, you learn that the firm left several customer records unprotected on one of its clouds, making it easy for anyone to access this information through a simple SQL command. While digging through the tabloids you stumble upon the cause of such a tremendously ironic turn of events. Turns out, it was a simple misconfiguration error: The system administrator left the cloud open to the public since they missed updating the privacy settings and permissions for the cloud storage in question.

We learn that human errors, despite stringent protocols, are difficult to control and, consequentially, remove. The increasing complexity of distributed and component-based systems and common misunderstandings of system requirements and design will likely lead to more problems. While humans play a critical role in decision-making and monitoring systems, manual updates are no longer viable.

**So, What Can You Do About It?**

With all that's happening in cybersecurity, can you confidently say you have all your endpoints covered? And by all, I mean all — including the data on third-party systems. If your answer to this is yes, congratulations! You're doing better than most organizations in the world! But if your answer is no, I would like you to consider the following measures to improve the security of your systems: 

1.  Employ automation that extends DevOps from application delivery to IT operations to DevSecOps. Automation is the remedy that will help organizations avoid manual errors. It will allow employees to use their precious time for more important tasks while confirming that initial and ongoing configurations are error-free. By automating audits on configurations, you can create a repeatable system hardening process that will potentially save you a lot of time and money in the future. Automation will enable you to reduce human error, improve reliability, maintain consistency, and support collaboration across teams. It will also give all stakeholders visibility over the security posture of your IT estate.
    
2.  Use a policy-as-code approach to help frame your security and compliance policies or rules. Organizations can configure systems by encoding security rules in human-readable and machine-enforceable policies and continuously checking for and remediating drift. In fact, policy-as-code brings both configuration and compliance management into a single step. This removes the security silo and brings all stakeholders into a shared pipeline and framework, enabling collaboration among team members and allowing for security to be shifted left in the development process. The policy-as-code approach can help detect misconfigurations, increase efficiency and speed, and reduce the risk of production errors.
    

While there is a technical aspect to DevSecOps, there is also a human aspect that involves collaboration and planning. A multiprong approach that starts with collaboration across IT operations and security and compliance teams, while discussing the appropriate external and internal compliance requirements, is a critical starting point.

After understanding the configuration and policies, you can start with pre-packaged policies that align with standards such as the Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks and the Department of Defense Systems Agency-Security Technical Implementation Guides (DISA-STIG). Consider using an automated system to verify if your configurations are continuously accurate. This, in turn, will allow your organization to address complex and heterogeneous environments, including cloud-native public cloud services, Kubernetes configurations, and any on-premises or hybrid cloud workload.

**About the Author**

Vice President of Strategy, Progress

Mark Troester is the vice president of strategy at Progress. He helped guide the strategic go-to-market efforts for Progress before transitioning into a leadership role for the Progress Infrastructure Management division, which includes DevOps/DevSecOps, network management, network detection and response, and application delivery control offerings. Previously, he worked with both upstarts and stalwarts like Sonatype, SAS, and Progress DataDirect. Before these positions, Mark worked as a developer and developer manager for startups and enterprises alike. Mark has extensive speaking experience on topics at the intersection of business and technology, including industry events hosted by Gartner, Forrester, TDWI, and more.

Could Security Misconfigurations Become No. 1 in OWASP Top 10?

Developers need to do more than scan code and vet software components, and ops should do more than just defend the deployment pipeline.

Source: whiteMocca via Shutterstock

Combining software development, deployment, and operations pipelines into DevOps teams promises increased efficiency, easier and more frequent updates, and better quality applications. Yet the complexity of the infrastructure has also led to a growing attack surface that is hard to monitor and maintain.

On the development side, the average organization uses four to nine different programming languages, has to deal with millions of new packages and images every year, and remediates thousands of vulnerabilities in the most common open source components, according to JFrog's Software Supply Chain State of the Union 2024 report. At the other end of the DevOps pipeline, two-thirds of companies have delayed deployment of an application due to Kubernetes security concerns, and nearly half (46%) had actual security incidents, according to Red Hat's The State of Kubernetes Security 2024 report.

Cybersecurity professionals aiming to secure the application pipeline have to pay attention to the software being written by developers, the open source components imported by developers, the containers and cloud infrastructure used to deploy software, and the build tools used to make the software, says Jeff Williams, chief technology officer and co-founder of Contrast Security, a software security firm.

"The problem is it's such a huge attack surface," he says. "It's not just your pipeline. It's all the other code that goes into developing software — it's IDEs and test tools and performance suites ... any one of them is capable of subverting the code that your developers are building and producing."

Gaining an integrated view of the entire DevOps pipeline, from development to application deployment, is increasingly important. Software components — not just open source libraries but Docker containers and other infrastructure assets — often have vulnerable code, increasing risk. Third-party tools can be compromised — remember Codecov's breach —allowing malicious code to be injected into projects under development. Cloud infrastructure and storage can be misconfigured or improperly protected, a la Snowflake instances.

Having good visibility into the state of the DevOps software pipeline and deployment infrastructure is critical, says Josh Lemos, chief information security officer at DevOps provider GitLab (and no relation to the author).

"There are two real important trains that need to run," he says. "One is you need the development and packaging security, compliance, and attestation of all of your build artifacts in one of those trains — or work streams. The other is the deployment monitoring and orchestration of those things in your production environments."

**Write, Use, Buy, Build**

Overall, DevOps security teams need to protect four areas that are open to attack. The first and second areas are most obvious to developers: the code that they write and the software components that they use, says Contrast Security's Williams.

"We've been talking about \[that code\] since the beginning of OWASP ... if you got bugs in the code you write, people exploit them, and you get breached. It's not good," he says.

Companies also have to pay attention to the code that they buy or — through a service — use indirectly. Finally, they need to secure the applications and services that are used to build and deploy software — the IDEs, test tools, performance suites, and instrumentation.

"Any one of those is capable of subverting the final code," Williams says, adding that most DevOps teams do not pay attention to the full attack surface posed by their pipeline and software supply chain. "I think we're still in the Stone Age, when it comes to real supply chain security."

While the vast majority of companies (87%) are building or moving applications to cloud-native, most (59%) did not understand the security implications of doing so and have suffered a security issue as a result. Predictably, the collection of common security incidents are as varied as the infrastructure needed to produce and deploy software: Network breaches, API vulnerabilities, certificate misconfigurations, cluster misconfigurations, and vulnerabilities in containers are among the top causes of security incidents, according to a November 2023 survey of cloud-native application security issues.

Even companies that are monitoring parts of their DevOps pipelines are not getting good coverage, says Williams.

"It's not everywhere, and almost nothing covers part of the DevOps like developer workstations and IDEs and testing frameworks and plugins," he says. "I mean, there's a universe of code that nobody's monitoring, and most organizations are not really thinking about this problem."

**Questioning Your DevOps Infrastructure**

For most companies, ensuring that they have visibility into the entire pipeline is essential. Monitoring can warn when a retired package is suddenly revived in the repository by an untrusted party, or when secrets are included in code that might otherwise be pushed to a repository, or when a Docker image has significant amounts of unused software.

Companies need to have continuous monitoring of each step in the pipeline, says Paul Davis, field CISO at software supply chain provider JFrog.

"\[Knowing\] what's going ... and \[seeing that\] a package has gone bad in production, or that I need to roll back a package because somebody's come with a new vulnerability — that ease of use \[and visibility\] into the attack surface, that insight and that traceability — is key for me," he says.

Companies should also take action around four specific areas of their DevOps infrastructure, according to GitLab's Lemos. First, the identities of any developer, ops specialist, device or service that takes part in the pipeline should be logged. Companies should also maintain a list of software artifact that they are using, which ones have vulnerabilities, and maintain a private repository, if possible. The build systems should be frequently tested, and any automated triggers — such as changes to third-party software that triggers a build — should be analyzed for potential security implications. Finally, the entire pipeline should be architected to minimize the impact — the "blast radius" — of a compromise, he says.

"The best thing I've seen companies do as a first step is to get to some known good design patterns," Lemos says. "The more of that that you can abstract away from \[bad security practices\], the more successful your security program will be, the less churn and load you'll have, and the more reusable your code becomes."

**The Promise, and Peril, of AI**

The breadth of the DevOps attack surface also represents an opportunity for automation and AI assistance. DevOps already gains much of its agility and speed through automation, with configuration- and infrastructure-as-code dominating because expressing architecture as files allow repeatability for operations, while analyzing the instructions allow for more secure infrastructure.

Yet, when it comes to security, most companies are holding back on adoption, says Laurent Gil, chief product officer for Kubernetes automation platform Cast AI.

"Almost every security company offers automation in some form, and yet nobody is using it," he says. "\[Security teams\] should know that it's okay to use automation to either block things that should be blocked, or to auto-remediate when you find something that contains vulnerabilities."

AI development also brings new ways of working with code and data — an attack surface area that is not fully understood and for which DevOps teams are not ready, says GitLab's Lemos.

"There is the possibility to do really old-style attacks, because you're combining data and content into a model," he says. "A model with a pickle file that gets consumed into a data scientist's workstation, if they deserialize it and it has a payload, they've just invited in some malicious code into their environment."

**About the Author**

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline Journalism (Online) in 2003 for coverage of the Blaster worm. Crunches numbers on various trends using Python and R. Recent reports include analyses of the shortage in cybersecurity workers and annual vulnerability trends.

Moving DevOps Security Out of 'the Stone Age'

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-7164-03 - The Migration Toolkit for Containers 1.8.4 is now available. Issues addressed include denial of service and password leak vulnerabilities.

The following advisory data is extracted from:

https://access.redhat.com/security/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_7164.json

Red Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.

- Packet Storm Staff

====================================================================  
Red Hat Security Advisory

Synopsis:           Important: Migration Toolkit for Containers (MTC) 1.8.4 security and bug fix update  
Advisory ID:        RHSA-2024:7164-03  
Product:            Red Hat Migration Toolkit  
Advisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:7164  
Issue date:         2024-09-26  
Revision:           03  
CVE Names:          CVE-2019-25211  
====================================================================

Summary: 

The Migration Toolkit for Containers (MTC) 1.8.4 is now available.

Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact  
of Important. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score,  
which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability  
from the CVE link(s) in the References section.

Description:

The Migration Toolkit for Containers (MTC) enables you to migrate Kubernetes resources, persistent volume data, and internal container images between OpenShift Container Platform clusters, using the MTC web console or the Kubernetes API.

Security Fix(es) from Bugzilla:

* golang: net/http, x/net/http2: unlimited number of CONTINUATION frames causes DoS (CVE-2023-45288)

* webpack-dev-middleware: lack of URL validation may lead to file leak (CVE-2024-29180)

* express: cause malformed URLs to be evaluated (CVE-2024-29041)

* axios: axios: Server-Side Request Forgery (CVE-2024-39338)

* golang: net/http/cookiejar: incorrect forwarding of sensitive headers and cookies on HTTP redirect (CVE-2023-45289)

* jose-go: improper handling of highly compressed data (CVE-2024-28180)

* follow-redirects: Possible credential leak (CVE-2024-28849)

* moby: external DNS requests from 'internal' networks could lead to data exfiltration (CVE-2024-29018)

* containers/image: digest type does not guarantee valid type (CVE-2024-3727)

* golang: net: malformed DNS message can cause infinite loop (CVE-2024-24788)

* braces: fails to limit the number of characters it can handle (CVE-2024-4068)

* node-tar: denial of service while parsing a tar file due to lack of folders depth validation (CVE-2024-28863)

For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Solution:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258

CVEs:

CVE-2019-25211

References:

https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#important  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268018  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268273  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268854  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269576  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270591  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270863  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274767  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279814  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280600  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290901  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293200  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2295302  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299624  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299625  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299628  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299668  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MIG-1592  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MIG-1593  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MIG-1598  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MIG-1610

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-7164-03

Source: whiteMocca via Shutterstock

Combining software development, deployment, and operations pipelines into DevOps teams promises increased efficiency, easier and more frequent updates, and higher-quality applications. Yet the complexity of the infrastructure has also led to a growing attack surface that is hard to monitor and maintain.

On the development side, the average organization uses four to nine different programming languages, deals with millions of new packages and images every year, and has to remediate thousands of vulnerabilities in the most common open source components, according to JFrog's "Software Supply Chain State of the Union 2024" report. At the other end of the DevOps pipeline, two-thirds of companies have delayed deployment of an application due to Kubernetes security concerns, and nearly half (46%) had actual security incidents, according to Red Hat's 2024 "The State of Kubernetes" security report.

Cybersecurity professionals aiming to secure the application pipeline have to pay attention to the software being written by developers, the open source components imported by developers, the containers and cloud infrastructure used to deploy software, and the build tools used to make the software, says Jeff Williams, chief technology officer and co-founder of Contrast Security, a software security firm.

"The problem is it's such a huge attack surface," he says. "It's not just your pipeline. It's all the other code that goes into developing software — it's IDEs and test tools and performance suites. ... Any one of them is capable of subverting the code that your developers are building and producing."

Gaining an integrated view of the entire DevOps pipeline, from development to application deployment, is increasingly important. Software components — not just open source libraries but Docker containers and other infrastructure assets — often have vulnerable code, increasing risk. Third-party tools can be compromised — remember Codecov's breach — allowing malicious code to be injected into projects under development. Cloud infrastructure and storage can be misconfigured or improperly protected, a la Snowflake instances.

Having good visibility into the state of the DevOps software pipeline and deployment infrastructure is critical, says Josh Lemos, chief information security officer at DevOps provider GitLab (and no relation to the author).

"There are two really important trains that need to run," he says. "One is you need the development and packaging security, compliance, and attestation of all of your build artifacts in one of those trains or work streams. The other is the deployment monitoring and orchestration of those things in your production environments."

**Write, Use, Buy, Build**

Overall, DevOps security teams need to protect four areas that are open to attack. The first and second areas are most obvious to developers: the code that they write and the software components that they use, says Contrast Security's Williams.

"We've been talking about \[that code\] since the beginning of OWASP," he says. "If you have bugs in the code you write, people exploit them, and you get breached. It's not good."

Companies also have to pay attention to the code that they buy or, through a service, use indirectly. Finally, they need to secure the applications and services that are used to build and deploy software —the IDEs, test tools, performance suites, and instrumentation.

"Any one of those is capable of subverting the final code," Williams says, adding that most DevOps teams do not pay attention to the full attack surface posed by their pipelines and software supply chains. "I think we're still in the Stone Age when it comes to real supply chain security."

While the vast majority of companies (87%) are building or moving applications to cloud-native, 59% did not understand the security implications of doing so and have suffered a security issue as a result. Predictably, the collection of common security incidents are as varied as the infrastructure needed to produce and deploy software: Network breaches, API vulnerabilities, certificate misconfigurations, cluster misconfigurations, and vulnerabilities in containers are among the top causes of security incidents, according to a November 2023 survey of cloud-native application security issues.

Even companies that are monitoring parts of their DevOps pipelines are not getting good coverage, says Williams.

"It's not everywhere, and almost nothing covers part of the DevOps like developer workstations and IDEs and testing frameworks and plug-ins," he says. "I mean, there's a universe of code that nobody's monitoring, and most organizations are not really thinking about this problem."

**Questioning Your DevOps Infrastructure**

For most companies, ensuring that they have visibility into the entire pipeline is essential. Monitoring can warn when a retired package is suddenly revived in the repository by an untrusted party, or when secrets are included in code that might otherwise be pushed to a repository, or when a Docker image has significant amounts of unused software.

Companies need to have continuous monitoring of each step in the pipeline, says Paul Davis, field CISO at software supply chain provider JFrog.

"\[Knowing\] what's going ... and \[seeing that\] a package has gone bad in production, or that I need to roll back a package because somebody's come with a new vulnerability, that ease of use \[and visibility\] into the attack surface — that insight and that traceability — is key for me," he says.

Companies should also take action around four specific areas of their DevOps infrastructure, according to GitLab's Lemos. First, the identities of any developer, ops specialist, device, or service that takes part in the pipeline should be logged. Companies should also maintain a list of software artifacts that they are using, which ones have vulnerabilities, and maintain a private repository, if possible. The build systems should be frequently tested and any automated triggers — such as changes to third-party software that triggers a build — should be analyzed for potential security implications. Finally, the entire pipeline should be architected to minimize the impact — that is, the "blast radius" — of a compromise, he says.

"The best thing I've seen companies do as a first step is to get to some known good design patterns," Lemos says. "The more of that that you can abstract away from \[bad security practices\], the more successful your security program will be, the less churn and load you'll have, and the more reusable your code becomes."

**The Promise and Peril of AI**

The breadth of the DevOps attack surface also represents an opportunity for automation and the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI). DevOps already gains much of its agility and speed through automation, with configuration- and infrastructure-as-code dominating because expressing architecture as files allows repeatability for operations, while analyzing the instructions allows for more secure infrastructure.

Yet when it comes to security, most companies are holding back on adoption, says Laurent Gil, chief product officer for Kubernetes automation platform CAST AI.

"Almost every security company offers automation in some form, and yet nobody is using it," he says. "\[Security teams\] should know that it's OK to use automation to either block things that should be blocked or to auto-remediate when you find something that contains vulnerabilities."

Yet AI development also brings new ways of working with code and data — an attack surface area that is not fully understood and for which DevOps teams are not ready, Lemos says.

"There is the possibility to do really old-style attacks because you're combining data and content into a model," he says. "A model with a pickle file that gets consumed into a data scientist's workstation, if they deserialize it and it has a payload, they've just invited some malicious code into their environment."

**About the Author**

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline Journalism (Online) in 2003 for coverage of the Blaster worm. Crunches numbers on various trends using Python and R. Recent reports include analyses of the shortage in cybersecurity workers and annual vulnerability trends.

Moving DevOps Security Out of the 'Stone Age'

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-6827-03 - Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform release 4.16.14 is now available with updates to packages and images that fix several bugs and add enhancements. Issues addressed include an open redirection vulnerability.

The following advisory data is extracted from:

https://access.redhat.com/security/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_6827.json

Red Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.

- Packet Storm Staff

====================================================================  
Red Hat Security Advisory

Synopsis:           Moderate: OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.14 security update  
Advisory ID:        RHSA-2024:6827-03  
Product:            Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise  
Advisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:6827  
Issue date:         2024-09-24  
Revision:           03  
CVE Names:          CVE-2024-42353  
====================================================================

Summary: 

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform release 4.16.14 is now available with updates to packages and images that fix several bugs and add enhancements.

This release includes a security update for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.

Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Moderate. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section.

Description:

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is Red Hat's cloud computing Kubernetes application platform solution designed for on-premise or private cloud deployments.

This advisory contains the RPM packages for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.14. See the following advisory for the container images for this release:

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:6824

Security Fix(es):

* webob: WebOb's location header normalization during redirect leads to  
open redirect (CVE-2024-42353)

For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

All OpenShift Container Platform 4.16 users are advised to upgrade to these updated packages and images when they are available in the appropriate release channel. To check for available updates, use the OpenShift CLI (oc) or web console. Instructions for upgrading a cluster are available at https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.16/updating/updating_a_cluster/updating-cluster-cli.html

Solution:

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.16/release_notes/ocp-4-16-release-notes.html

CVEs:

CVE-2024-42353

References:

https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#moderate

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-6827-03

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-6824-03 - Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform release 4.16.14 is now available with updates to packages and images that fix several bugs and add enhancements.

    The following advisory data is extracted from:https://access.redhat.com/security/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_6824.jsonRed Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.- Packet Storm Staff====================================================================Red Hat Security AdvisorySynopsis:           Moderate: OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.14 security updateAdvisory ID:        RHSA-2024:6824-03Product:            Red Hat OpenShift EnterpriseAdvisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:6824Issue date:         2024-09-25Revision:           03CVE Names:          CVE-2024-3727====================================================================Summary: Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform release 4.16.14 is now available with updates to packages and images that fix several bugs and add enhancements.This release includes a security update for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Moderate. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section.Description:Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is Red Hat's cloud computingKubernetes application platform solution designed for on-premise or privatecloud deployments.Security Fix(es):* containers/image: digest type does not guarantee valid type(CVE-2024-3727)* golang-protobuf: encoding/protojson, internal/encoding/json: infiniteloop in protojson.Unmarshal when unmarshaling certain forms of invalid JSON(CVE-2024-24786)* Bare Metal Operator: BMO can expose particularly named secrets from othernamespaces via BMH CRD (CVE-2024-43803)For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSSscore, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVEpage(s)listed in the References section.Solution:CVEs:CVE-2024-3727References:https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#moderatehttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268046https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274767https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302487https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309536https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-24386https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-34518https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-36855https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-37046https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-37763https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-37937https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-38021https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-38058https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-38502https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-38911https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-39082https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-39179https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-39287https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-39496https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41540https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41555https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41619https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41677https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41806https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41886https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41910

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-6824-03

Red Hat Security Advisory 2024-6818-03 - Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform release 4.15.34 is now available with updates to packages and images that fix several bugs and add enhancements. Issues addressed include a denial of service vulnerability.

The following advisory data is extracted from:

https://access.redhat.com/security/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2024/rhsa-2024_6818.json

Red Hat officially shut down their mailing list notifications October 10, 2023.  Due to this, Packet Storm has recreated the below data as a reference point to raise awareness.  It must be noted that due to an inability to easily track revision updates without crawling Red Hat's archive, these advisories are single notifications and we strongly suggest that you visit the Red Hat provided links to ensure you have the latest information available if the subject matter listed pertains to your environment.

- Packet Storm Staff

====================================================================  
Red Hat Security Advisory

Synopsis:           Moderate: OpenShift Container Platform 4.15.34 bug fix and security update  
Advisory ID:        RHSA-2024:6818-03  
Product:            Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise  
Advisory URL:       https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:6818  
Issue date:         2024-09-25  
Revision:           03  
CVE Names:          CVE-2024-7409  
====================================================================

Summary: 

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform release 4.15.34 is now available with updates to packages and images that fix several bugs and add enhancements.

This release includes a security update for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.15.

Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Moderate. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section.

Description:

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is Red Hat's cloud computing Kubernetes application platform solution designed for on-premise or private cloud deployments.

This advisory contains the container images for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.15.34. See the following advisory for the RPM packages for this release:

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2024:6821

Space precludes documenting all of the container images in this advisory. See the following Release Notes documentation, which will be updated shortly for this release, for details about these changes:

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.15/release_notes/ocp-4-15-release-notes.html

Security Fix(es):

* QEMU: Denial of Service via Improper Synchronization in QEMU NBD Server  
During Socket Closure (CVE-2024-7409)

For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.  
All OpenShift Container Platform 4.15 users are advised to upgrade to these updated packages and images when they are available in the appropriate release channel. To check for available updates, use the OpenShift CLI (oc) or web console. Instructions for upgrading a cluster are available at https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.15/updating/updating_a_cluster/updating-cluster-cli.html

Solution:

CVEs:

CVE-2024-7409

References:

https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#moderate  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302487  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-35869  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-35922  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-37464  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-37727  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-38065  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-38108  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-38593  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41340  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41598  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41635  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41701  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41809  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41819  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41946  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41947  
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-41981

Tag

#kubernetes