GHSA-ggp9-c99x-54gp

Описание

Summary

Due to improper TLS certificate management, a compromised virt-handler could impersonate virt-api by using its own TLS credentials, allowing it to initiate privileged operations against another virt-handler.

Details

Give all details on the vulnerability. Pointing to the incriminated source code is very helpful for the maintainer.

Because of improper TLS certificate management, a compromised virt-handler instance can reuse its TLS bundle to impersonate virt-api, enabling unauthorized access to VM lifecycle operations on other virt-handler nodes. The virt-api component acts as a sub-resource server, and it proxies API VM lifecycle requests to virt-handler instances. The communication between virt-api and virt-handler instances is secured using mTLS. The former acts as a client while the latter as the server. The client certificate used by virt-api is defined in the source code as follows and have the following properties:

The virt-handler component verifies the signature of client certificates using a self-signed root CA. This latter is generated by virt-operator when the KubeVirt stack is deployed and it is stored within a ConfigMap in the kubevirt namespace. This configmap is used as a trust anchor by all virt-handler instances to verify client certificates.

The kubevirt-ca is also used to sign the server certificate which is used by a virt-handler instance:

In addition to the validity of the signature, the virt-handler component also verifies the CN field of the presented certificate:

<code.sec.SetupTLSForVirtHandlerServer>

The above code illustrates that client certificates accepted be KubeVirt should have as CN kubevirt.io:system:client:virt-handler which is the same as the CN present in the virt-api's certificate. However, the latter is not the only component in the KubeVirt stack which can communicate with a virt-handler instance.

In addition to the extension API server, any other virt-handler can communicate with it. This happens in the context of VM migration operations. When a VM is migrated from one node to another, the virt-handlers on both nodes are going to use structures called ProxyManager to communicate back and forth on the state of the migration.

This communication follows a classical client-server model, where the virt-handler on the migration source node acts as a client and the virt-handler on the migration destination node acts as a server. This communication is also secured using mTLS. The server certificate presented by the virt-handler acting as a migration destination node is the same as the one which is used for the communication between the same virt-handler and the virt-api in the context of VM lifecycle operations (CN=kubevirt.io:system:node:virt-handler). However, the client certificate which is used by a virt-handler instance has the same CN as the client certificate used by virt-api.

Although the migration procedure, where two separate virt-handler instances coordinate the transfer of a VM's state, is not directly tied to the communication between virt-api and virt-handler during VM lifecycle management, there is a critical overlap in the TLS authentication mechanism. Specifically, the client certificate used by both virt-handler and virt-api shares the same CN field, despite the use of different, randomly allocated ports, for the two types of communication.

PoC

Complete instructions, including specific configuration details, to reproduce the vulnerability.

To illustrate the vulnerability, a Minikube cluster has been deployed with two nodes (minikube and minikube-m02) thus, with two virt-handler instances alongside a vmi running on one of the nodes. It is considered that an attacker has obtained access to the client certificate bundle used by the virt-handler instance running on the compromised node (minikube) while the virtual machine is running on the other node (minikube-m02). Thus, they can interact with the sub-resource API exposed by the other virt-handler instance and control the lifecycle of the VMs running on the other node:

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?

Due to the peer verification logic in virt-handler (via verifyPeerCert), an attacker who compromises a virt-handler instance, could exploit these shared credentials to impersonate virt-api and execute privileged operations against other virt-handler instances potentially compromising the integrity and availability of the managed by it VM.