CVE-2021-44717
Description
There's a flaw in golang's syscall.ForkExec() interface. An attacker who manages to first cause a file descriptor exhaustion for the process, then cause syscall.ForkExec() to be called repeatedly, could compromise data integrity and/or confidentiality in a somewhat uncontrolled way in programs linked with and using syscall.ForkExec().
Statement
This flaw has had the severity level set to Moderate due to the attack complexity required to exhaust file descriptors at the time ForkExec is called, plus an attacker does not necessarily have direct control over where/how data is leaked.
For Service Telemetry Framework, because the flaw's impact is lower, no update will be provided at this time for its containers.
runc shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9 are not affected by this flaw because the flaw is already patched in the shipped versions.
Mitigation
This bug can be mitigated by raising the per-process file descriptor limit.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert: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).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 4.8 | 4.8 | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Network | Network | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | High | High | N/A |
| Privileges Required | None | None | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | None | N/A |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged | N/A |
| Confidentiality | Low | Low | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | Low | Low | N/A |
| Availability Impact | None | None | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Red Hat CVSS v3 Score Explanation
Set AC:H because the attacker needs to be capable of exhausting the application's file descriptors, which may or may not be under their control, depending on the application. C:L because "it can result in misdirected I/O such as writing network traffic intended for one connection to a different connection, or content intended for one file to a different one." could definitely cause a compromise to data confidentiality. However, the attacker likely doesn't have direct control of exactly what is compromised, which is why we set C:L and I:L here.
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Read Application Data
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
