CVE-2020-11112
Public on
Last Modified:
Description
A flaw was found in jackson-databind 2.x in versions prior to 2.9.10.4. The interaction between serialization gadgets and typing is mishandled. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.
Statement
Red Hat Satellite 6 does not enable polymorphic deserialization which is a required configuration for the vulnerability to be used. We may update the jackson-databind dependency in a future release.
Red Hat OpenStack Platform ships OpenDaylight, which contains the vulnerable jackson-databind. However, OpenDaylight does not expose jackson-databind in a way that would make it vulnerable, lowering the impact of the vulnerability for OpenDaylight. As such, Red Hat will not be providing a fix for OpenDaylight at this time.
While OpenShift Container Platform's elasticsearch plugins do ship the vulnerable component, it doesn't do any of the unsafe things described in https://access.redhat.com/solutions/3279231. We may update the jackson-databind dependency in a future release.
The PKI module as shipped in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 does not enable polymorphic deserialization which is a required configuration for the vulnerability to be used, lowering the impact of the vulnerability for the Product. We may update the jackson-databind dependency in a future release.
Mitigation
The following conditions are needed for an exploit, we recommend avoiding all if possible
* Deserialization from sources you do not control
* `enableDefaultTyping()`
* `@JsonTypeInfo using `id.CLASS` or `id.MINIMAL_CLASS`
Additional information
- Bugzilla 1821311: jackson-databind: Serialization gadgets in org.apache.commons.proxy.provider.remoting.RmiProvider
- CWE-502->CWE-96: Deserialization of Untrusted Data leads to Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code ('Static Code Injection')
- FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2020-11112
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
| Red Hat | NVD | |
|---|---|---|
CVSS v3 Base Score | 8.1 | 8.8 |
Attack Vector | Network | Network |
Attack Complexity | High | Low |
Privileges Required | None | None |
User Interaction | None | Required |
Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged |
Confidentiality Impact | High | High |
Integrity Impact | High | High |
Availability Impact | High | High |
CVSS v3 Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Red Hat CVSS v3 Score Explanation
Red Hat Products do not enable the many conditions required for this flaw, and as such have a base score that differs from NVD's base evaluation, AC:L -> AC:H. This changed the base flaw impact as well, but does not alter individual product impacts.
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Integrity
Technical Impact: Modify Application Data; Unexpected State
Attackers can modify unexpected objects or data that was assumed to be safe from modification. Deserialized data or code could be modified without using the provided accessor functions, or unexpected functions could be invoked.
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
If a function is making an assumption on when to terminate, based on a sentry in a string, it could easily never terminate.
Other
Technical Impact: Varies by Context
The consequences can vary widely, because it depends on which objects or methods are being deserialized, and how they are used. Making an assumption that the code in the deserialized object is valid is dangerous and can enable exploitation. One example is attackers using gadget chains to perform unauthorized actions, such as generating a shell.
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Read Files or Directories; Read Application Data
The injected code could access restricted data / files.
Access Control
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
In some cases, injectable code controls authentication; this may lead to a remote vulnerability.
Access Control
Technical Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Injected code can access resources that the attacker is directly prevented from accessing.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability,Other
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Code injection attacks can lead to loss of data integrity in nearly all cases as the control-plane data injected is always incidental to data recall or writing. Additionally, code injection can often result in the execution of arbitrary code.
Non-Repudiation
Technical Impact: Hide Activities
Often the actions performed by injected control code are unlogged.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?
My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?
What is a mitigation?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
