Skip to content

Cilium has insecure IPsec transport encryption

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 27, 2024 in cilium/cilium • Updated May 14, 2024

Package

gomod github.com/cilium/cilium (Go)

Affected versions

>= 1.4.0, <= 1.13.13
>= 1.14.0, <= 1.14.7
>= 1.15.0, <= 1.15.2

Patched versions

1.13.14
1.14.9
1.15.3

Description

Impact

Users of IPsec transparent encryption in Cilium may be vulnerable to cryptographic attacks that render the transparent encryption ineffective.

In particular, Cilium is vulnerable to the following attacks by a man-in-the-middle attacker:

  • Chosen plaintext attacks
  • Key recovery attacks
  • Replay attacks

These attacks are possible due to an ESP sequence number collision when multiple nodes are configured with the same key. Fixed versions of Cilium use unique keys for each IPsec tunnel established between nodes, resolving all of the above attacks.

Important: After upgrading, users must perform a key rotation using the instructions here to ensure that they are no longer vulnerable to this issue. Please note that the key rotation instructions have recently been updated, and users must use the new instructions to properly establish secure IPsec tunnels. To validate that the new instructions have been followed properly, ensure that the IPsec Kubernetes secret contains a "+" sign.

Patches

All prior versions of Cilium that support IPsec transparent encryption (Cilium 1.4 onwards) are affected by this issue.

Patched versions:

  • Cilium 1.15.3
  • Cilium 1.14.9
  • Cilium 1.13.14

Workarounds

There is no workaround to this issue. IPsec transparent encryption users are strongly encouraged to upgrade.

Acknowledgements

The Cilium community has worked together with members of Cure53 and Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @NikAleksandrov and @pchaigno for their work on remediating the issue. Thanks to Marsh Ray, Senior Software Developer at Microsoft, for input and guidance on the fix.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on Slack.

As usual, if you think you found a related vulnerability, we strongly encourage you to report security vulnerabilities to our private security mailing list: [email protected] - first, before disclosing them in any public forums. This is a private mailing list where only members of the Cilium internal security team are subscribed to, and is treated as top priority.

References

@ferozsalam ferozsalam published to cilium/cilium Mar 27, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 27, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 28, 2024
Reviewed Mar 28, 2024
Last updated May 14, 2024

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Adjacent
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

0.045%
(17th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2024-28860

GHSA ID

GHSA-pwqm-x5x6-5586

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.