GHSA-9f94-5g5w-gf6r
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
AWS-LC is an open-source, general-purpose cryptographic library.
Impact
A logic error in CRL distribution point matching in AWS-LC allows a revoked certificate to bypass revocation checks during certificate validation, when the application enables CRL checking and uses partitioned CRLs with Issuing Distribution Point (IDP) extensions.
Customers of AWS services do not need to take action. aws-lc-sys and aws-lc-fips-sys contain code from AWS-LC. Applications using aws-lc-sys or aws-lc-fips-sys should upgrade to the most recent releases of aws-lc-sys or aws-lc-fips-sys.
Impacted versions:
- aws-lc-sys >= v0.15.0, < v0.39.0
- aws-lc-fips-sys >= v0.13.0, < v0.13.13
Patches
The patch is included in aws-lc-sys v0.39.0 and aws-lc-fips-sys v0.13.13.
Workarounds
Applications can workaround this issue if they do not enable CRL checking (X509_V_FLAG_CRL_CHECK). Applications using complete (non-partitioned) CRLs without IDP extensions are also not affected.
Otherwise, there is no workaround and applications using aws-lc-sys or aws-lc-fips-sys should upgrade to the most recent releases of aws-lc-sys or aws-lc-fips-sys.
References
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, we ask that you contact AWS Security via our vulnerability reporting page or directly via email to aws-security@amazon.com. Please do not create a public GitHub issue.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Certificate Validation
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
7.4high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aws-lc-sys | cargo | - | - | >=0.15.0,<0.39.0 | 0.39.0 |
| aws-lc-fips-sys | cargo | - | - | >=0.13.0,<0.13.13 | 0.13.13 |
CVSS:3 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).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
The attacker is unauthorized 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 user.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any or all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
RustSec
2.2