CVE-2025-27414
ADVISORY - bitnamiSummary
MinIO is a high performance object storage. Starting in RELEASE.2024-06-06T09-36-42Z and prior to
RELEASE.2025-02-28T09-55-16Z, a bug in evaluating the trust of the SSH key used in an SFTP connection to MinIO allows authentication bypass and unauthorized data access. On a MinIO server with SFTP access configured and using LDAP as an external identity provider, MinIO supports SSH key based authentication for SFTP connections when the user has the sshPublicKey
attribute set in their LDAP server. The server trusts the client's key only when the public key is the same as the sshPublicKey
attribute. Due to the bug, when the user has no sshPublicKey
property in LDAP, the server ends up trusting the key allowing the client to perform any FTP operations allowed by the MinIO access policies associated with the LDAP user (or any of their groups). Three requirements must be met in order to exploit the vulnerability. First, the MinIO server must be configured to allow SFTP access and use LDAP as an external identity provider. Second, the attacker must have knowledge of an LDAP username that does not have the sshPublicKey
property set. Third, such an LDAP username or one of their groups must also have some MinIO access policy configured. When this bug is successfully exploited, the attacker can perform any FTP operations (i.e. reading, writing, deleting and listing objects) allowed by the access policy associated with the LDAP user account (and their groups). Version 1.2.0 fixes the issue.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Authentication
Improper Authentication
Bitnami
BIT-minio-2025-27414
-
CVSS SCORE
4.6mediumPackage | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
minio | bitnami | - | - | >=2024.6.6,<2025.2.28 | 2025.2.28 |
CVSS:4 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
NIST
-
CVSS SCORE
4.6mediumGitHub
-
CVSS SCORE
6.3mediumGoLang
-