#vulnerability

### Impact In LXD's instance snapshot creation functionality, the Pongo2 template engine is used in the `snapshots.pattern` configuration for generating snapshot names. While code execution functionality has not been found in this template engine, it has file reading capabilities, creating a vulnerability that allows arbitrary file reading through template injection attacks. ### Reproduction Steps 1. Log in to LXD-UI with an account that has permissions to modify instance settings 2. Set the following template injection payload in the instance snapshot pattern: ``` {% filter urlencode|slice:":100" %}{% include "/etc/passwd" %}{%endfilter %} ``` Note that the above template uses the Pongo2 template engine's include tag to read system files. It also uses urlencode and slice filters to bypass character count and type restrictions. 3. Set scheduled snapshots to run every minute and wait for snapshot generation 4. Wait about a minute and confirm that file contents can be obtained from ...

### Impact In LXD's devLXD server, the source container identification process uses process cmdline (command line) information, allowing attackers to impersonate other containers by spoofing process names. The core issue lies in the findContainerForPID function in `lxd/api_devlxd.go`. This function identifies senders through two steps as shown below: 1. cmdline-based identification: Check while tracing back through parent processes, and if it starts with `[lxc monitor]`, extract the project name and container name from that process name in the format projectName_containerName. 2. PID namespace-based identification: If not found in Step 1, check against all containers' PID namespaces. https://github.com/canonical/lxd/blob/43d5189564d27f6161b430ed258c8b56603c2759/lxd/api_devlxd.go#L166-L276 Attackers can exploit Step 1 processing to impersonate arbitrary containers across projects by spoofing process names. ### Reproduction Steps 1. Access devLXD server from a normal container (e.g...

### Impact In LXD's images export API (`/1.0/images/{fingerprint}/export`), implementation differences in error handling allow determining project existence without authentication. Specifically, in the following code, errors when multiple images match are directly returned to users as API responses: https://github.com/canonical/lxd/blob/43d5189564d27f6161b430ed258c8b56603c2759/lxd/db/images.go#L239-L246 While fingerprints generally don't duplicate, this functionality uses fingerprints with LIKE clauses, allowing prefix specification. Therefore, using LIKE wildcards such as % will match multiple images if multiple images exist in the project. https://github.com/canonical/lxd/blob/43d5189564d27f6161b430ed258c8b56603c2759/lxd/db/images.go#L277-L286 In the above implementation, multiple matches result in a 500 error, but if the project itself doesn't exist, there are 0 matches and a 404 is returned. 1. When project exists and multiple images match: HTTP 500 error "More than one image...

### Impact Although outside the scope of this penetration test, a path traversal vulnerability exists in the validLogFileName function that validates log file names in lxd/instance_logs.go in the LXD 5.0 LTS series. This vulnerability was fixed in PR #15022 in February 2025, and is fixed in at least LXD 5.21 and later. However, this PR appears to be primarily aimed at code improvement rather than vulnerability fixing, with the vulnerability being fixed as a side effect. Therefore, no CVE number has been issued, and no security patch has been made for LXD 5.0 and earlier. However, since LXD 5.0 LTS is still in its support period and installation procedures are explained in official documentation, we judge that environments affected by this vulnerability likely exist and report it. Implementation in vulnerable versions (LXD 5.0 LTS series): https://github.com/canonical/lxd/blob/1f8c9f77782784900960bb3b8577c1491db59277/lxd/instance_logs.go#L152-L163 This function allows filenames st...

### Impact The LXD /1.0/images endpoint is implemented as an AllowUntrusted API that requires no authentication, making it accessible to users without accounts. This API allows determining project existence through differences in HTTP status codes when accessed with the project parameter. https://github.com/canonical/lxd/blob/43d5189564d27f6161b430ed258c8b56603c2759/lxd/images.go#L63-L69 This configuration allows access without authentication: https://github.com/canonical/lxd/blob/43d5189564d27f6161b430ed258c8b56603c2759/lxd/daemon.go#L924-L926 This API returns a 404 error when accessing existing projects and a 403 error when accessing non-existent projects, allowing confirmation of project existence through this difference. The problematic implementation is shown below. First, in the error handling implementation of the imagesGet function below, project existence is checked within the `projectutils.ImageProject` function, and the err returned by the `ImageProject` function is d...

**Why is this Chrome CVE included in the Security Update Guide?** The vulnerability assigned to this CVE is in Chromium Open Source Software (OSS) which is consumed by Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based). It is being documented in the Security Update Guide to announce that the latest version of Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) is no longer vulnerable. **How can I see the version of the browser?** 1. In your Microsoft Edge browser, click on the 3 dots (...) on the very right-hand side of the window 2. Click on **Help and Feedback** 3. Click on **About Microsoft Edge**

**Why is this Chrome CVE included in the Security Update Guide?** The vulnerability assigned to this CVE is in Chromium Open Source Software (OSS) which is consumed by Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based). It is being documented in the Security Update Guide to announce that the latest version of Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) is no longer vulnerable. **How can I see the version of the browser?** 1. In your Microsoft Edge browser, click on the 3 dots (...) on the very right-hand side of the window 2. Click on **Help and Feedback** 3. Click on **About Microsoft Edge**

**Why is this Chrome CVE included in the Security Update Guide?** The vulnerability assigned to this CVE is in Chromium Open Source Software (OSS) which is consumed by Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based). It is being documented in the Security Update Guide to announce that the latest version of Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) is no longer vulnerable. **How can I see the version of the browser?** 1. In your Microsoft Edge browser, click on the 3 dots (...) on the very right-hand side of the window 2. Click on **Help and Feedback** 3. Click on **About Microsoft Edge**

**Why is this Chrome CVE included in the Security Update Guide?** The vulnerability assigned to this CVE is in Chromium Open Source Software (OSS) which is consumed by Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based). It is being documented in the Security Update Guide to announce that the latest version of Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) is no longer vulnerable. **How can I see the version of the browser?** 1. In your Microsoft Edge browser, click on the 3 dots (...) on the very right-hand side of the window 2. Click on **Help and Feedback** 3. Click on **About Microsoft Edge**

**Why is this Chrome CVE included in the Security Update Guide?** The vulnerability assigned to this CVE is in Chromium Open Source Software (OSS) which is consumed by Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based). It is being documented in the Security Update Guide to announce that the latest version of Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) is no longer vulnerable. **How can I see the version of the browser?** 1. In your Microsoft Edge browser, click on the 3 dots (...) on the very right-hand side of the window 2. Click on **Help and Feedback** 3. Click on **About Microsoft Edge**