Skip to content

Unencrypted traffic between nodes when using WireGuard and L7 policies

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 18, 2024 in cilium/cilium • Updated Mar 19, 2024

Package

gomod github.com/cilium/cilium (Go)

Affected versions

>= 1.14.0, < 1.14.8
>= 1.15.0, < 1.15.2

Patched versions

1.14.8
1.15.2

Description

Impact

In Cilium clusters with WireGuard enabled and traffic matching Layer 7 policies:

  • Traffic that should be WireGuard-encrypted is sent unencrypted between a node's Envoy proxy and pods on other nodes.
  • Traffic that should be WireGuard-encrypted is sent unencrypted between a node's DNS proxy and pods on other nodes.

Patches

This issue affects:

  • In native routing mode (routingMode=native):
    • Cilium v1.14 versions before v1.14.8
    • Cilium v1.15 versions before v1.15.2
  • In tunneling mode (routingMode=tunnel):
    • Cilium v1.14 versions before v1.14.4
    • Cilium v1.14.4 if encryption.wireguard.encapsulate is set to false (default).

This issue has been resolved in:

  • In native routing mode (routingMode=native):
    • Cilium v1.14.8
    • Cilium v1.15.2
  • In tunneling mode (routingMode=tunnel):
    • Cilium v1.14.4. NOTE encryption.wireguard.encapsulate must be set to true.

Workarounds

There is no workaround to this issue.

Acknowledgements

The Cilium community has worked together with members of Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @brb, @giorio94, @gandro and @jschwinger233 for their work on triaging and remediating this issue.

For more information

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

If you think you found a related vulnerability, we strongly encourage you to report security vulnerabilities to our private security mailing list at [email protected]. This is a private mailing list where only members of the Cilium internal security team are subscribed to, and your report will be treated as top priority.

References

@ferozsalam ferozsalam published to cilium/cilium Mar 18, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 18, 2024
Reviewed Mar 18, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 18, 2024
Last updated Mar 19, 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
Adjacent
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
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:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

0.045%
(17th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2024-28250

GHSA ID

GHSA-v6q2-4qr3-5cw6

Source code

Credits

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