Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8: Incorrect Authorization
CVE-2024-2698 is a high-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 from Red Hat, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.67% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 52% of scored CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Freeipa to 4.11.2 or a later version.
- Read the advisory on access.redhat.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update Support | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Freeipa | Freeipa | 4.11.0 up to, but not including, 4.11.2; 4.12.0 | 4.11.2 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.8 | High | CNA (redhat.com) |
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.8 | High | NVD |
Official description
A vulnerability was found in FreeIPA in how the initial implementation of MS-SFU by MIT Kerberos was missing a condition for granting the "forwardable" flag on S4U2Self tickets. Fixing this mistake required adding a special case for the check_allowed_to_delegate() function: If the target service argument is NULL, then it means the KDC is probing for general constrained delegation rules and not checking a specific S4U2Proxy request. In FreeIPA 4.11.0, the behavior of ipadb_match_acl() was modified to match the changes from upstream MIT Kerberos 1.20. However, a mistake resulting in this mechanism applies in cases where the target service argument is set AND where it is unset. This results in S4U2Proxy requests being accepted regardless of whether or not there is a matching service delegation rule.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Advisories
Patches and release notes
- freeipa.org/release-notes/4-12-1.htmlRelease Notes
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.9 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Incorrect Authorization vulnerabilities
- 8.1 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.4 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.