Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:24:13 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: Re: cve request: docker swarmkit Dos occurs by
 repeatly joining and quitting swam cluster as a node

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Diogo Mónica <diogo.monica@...ker.com>
wrote:

> If you read the report, you'll see that no claims are made about shutting
> down the swarm. The reporter simply claims that no new nodes can join the
> swarm:
>
> "it results in a machine could not join the swarm cluster after another
> node’s repeatedly joining and quitting the swarm"


> As we describe in our documentation, possession of the token gives the
> permission to join new workers. Joining new workers effectively means
> reserving some resources for your worker. If the system runs out of
> resources, I believe it is expected that no new workers should be able to
> join.
>

DoS is often a gray area. Obviously if I send 10 gigabits of request
traffic and swarm gets slow/non responsive the CVE response would be "Well
yeah... that's probably what happens if you saturate the network with
requests. No CVE for you" but if a single node behaves in an odd way and
prevents the whole system from working in an expected manner, that may be a
problem that is worth a CVE, especially if it can be triggered by an
attacker/less trusted user (classic trust boundary violation to quote
@sushidude).


>
> Again, this is simply not a vulnerability of either Docker swarm or Docker
> swarmkit, and I kindly request that this CVE is rescinded.
>

Regardless of whether this is CVE worthy is there any plan to add rate
limiting or other protective measures to prevent a single badly
behaved/malicious node from making the swarm unable to operate normally? I
don't see any issues in https://github.com/docker/swarm/issues for this.
Thanks!


>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Diogo Monica <diogo.monica@...ker.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can you please describe how this vulnerability makes a worker node be
> > able
> > > to administer the swarm?
> > >
> >
> > It allows a worker node to disable and effectively shut down the swarm, I
> > assume shutting down the swan is an administrative function, if not
> please
> > let me know where the documentation for workers covers this (allowing a
> > worker to shutdown the swarm). Thanks!
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:12 PM -0700, "Kurt Seifried" <
> > > kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Diogo Mónica
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A few weeks ago (Aug 4, 2016), a CVE (CVE-2016-6595) describing a DoS
> > on
> > > > docker swarm got issued. We believe this not a real issue, and would
> > like
> > > > to have the CVE rescinded.
> > > >
> > > > The person reporting this "vulnerability" is exhausting the resources
> > of
> > > a
> > > > remote manager by doing hundreds of join/leave operations without
> > > removing
> > > > the state that is left by old nodes. At some point the manager
> > obviously
> > > > stops being able to accept new nodes, since it runs out of memory.
> > > >
> > > > Given that both for Docker swarm and for Docker Swarmkit nodes are
> > > > *required* to provide a secret token (it's actually the only mode of
> > > > operation), this means that no adversary can simply join nodes and
> > > exhaust
> > > > manager resources.
> > > >
> > > > We can't do anything about a manager running out of memory and not
> > being
> > > > able to add new legitimate nodes to the system. This is merely a
> > resource
> > > > provisioning issue, and definitely not a CVE worthy vulnerability.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I checked the documentation and it looks like a worker node is only
> > > supposed to work and is not supposed to be able to administer the
> swarm.
> > As
> > > such this is a trust boundary violation, and needs a CVE.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > --
> > > > Diogo Mónica
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
> > > PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
> > > Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@...hat.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
> > PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
> > Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@...hat.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Diogo Mónica
>



-- 

--
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@...hat.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.