Init commit.
This commit is contained in:
sleepwithoutbz
2
.gitignore
vendored
Normal file
2
.gitignore
vendored
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
|
||||
data
|
||||
cve
|
||||
129
ai_analysis.py
Normal file
129
ai_analysis.py
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
|
||||
import os
|
||||
import json
|
||||
import glob
|
||||
from openai import OpenAI
|
||||
from typing import Dict, List, Any
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class ContentParser:
|
||||
def __init__(
|
||||
self,
|
||||
target_keys: str,
|
||||
api_key: str,
|
||||
base_url: str = "https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1",
|
||||
model: str = "gpt-3.5-turbo",
|
||||
):
|
||||
"""
|
||||
初始化解析器
|
||||
:param target_keys: 需要提取的目标键列表
|
||||
:param api_key: 大模型API密钥
|
||||
:param model: 使用的大模型名称
|
||||
"""
|
||||
self.client = OpenAI(
|
||||
api_key=api_key,
|
||||
base_url=base_url,
|
||||
)
|
||||
self.target_keys = target_keys
|
||||
self.log = open("name.log", "w", encoding="utf-8")
|
||||
|
||||
def process_directory(self, directory: str, recursive: bool = True):
|
||||
"""
|
||||
处理目录中的所有文件
|
||||
:param directory: 要处理的目录路径
|
||||
:param recursive: 是否递归处理子目录
|
||||
"""
|
||||
results = []
|
||||
|
||||
# 遍历目录
|
||||
pattern = "**/*" if recursive else "*"
|
||||
for filepath in glob.glob(
|
||||
os.path.join(directory, pattern), recursive=recursive
|
||||
):
|
||||
if os.path.isfile(filepath):
|
||||
_, ext = os.path.splitext(filepath)
|
||||
if ext == ".json":
|
||||
try:
|
||||
result = self._process_json(filepath)
|
||||
if result:
|
||||
results.append({"file": filepath, "description": result})
|
||||
if self._check_related(result):
|
||||
self.log.write(f"{filepath}\n")
|
||||
# self._analyze_with_ai(result)
|
||||
except Exception as e:
|
||||
print(f"处理文件 {filepath} 时出错: {str(e)}")
|
||||
return
|
||||
|
||||
def _process_json(self, filepath: str) -> str:
|
||||
"""处理JSON文件"""
|
||||
with open(filepath, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f:
|
||||
data = json.load(f)
|
||||
return self._extract_values(data)
|
||||
|
||||
def _extract_values(self, data: Dict) -> str:
|
||||
"""从数据中提取目标值，支持嵌套查询"""
|
||||
parts = self.target_keys.split(".")
|
||||
value = data
|
||||
try:
|
||||
for part in parts:
|
||||
if isinstance(value, list):
|
||||
value = value[int(part)]
|
||||
else:
|
||||
value = value.get(part, None)
|
||||
if value is None:
|
||||
break
|
||||
return value.__str__()
|
||||
except (KeyError, IndexError, TypeError):
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
|
||||
def _check_related(self, text: str) -> bool:
|
||||
keywords = ["docker", "namespace", "cgroup"]
|
||||
text = text.lower()
|
||||
return any(keyword in text for keyword in keywords)
|
||||
|
||||
def _analyze_with_ai(self, data: str):
|
||||
prompt = """
|
||||
请分析下面用户从文件中提取的数据，给出总结报告：
|
||||
分析要求：
|
||||
1. 分析这个CVE信息是否与Linux、Kernel相关
|
||||
2. 如果满足与Linux、Kernel相关，分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关
|
||||
3. 如果不满足1、2两个条件，直接输出“非相关CVE”，不需要附带任何其他内容
|
||||
4. 如果满足1、2两个条件，直接输出“可疑CVE”，不需要附带任何其他内容
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
try:
|
||||
completion = self.client.chat.completions.create(
|
||||
# 模型列表：https://help.aliyun.com/zh/model-studio/getting-started/models
|
||||
model="qwen-plus",
|
||||
messages=[
|
||||
{"role": "system", "content": prompt},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"role": "user",
|
||||
"content": data,
|
||||
},
|
||||
],
|
||||
# Qwen3模型通过enable_thinking参数控制思考过程（开源版默认True，商业版默认False）
|
||||
# 使用Qwen3开源版模型时，若未启用流式输出，请将下行取消注释，否则会报错
|
||||
# extra_body={"enable_thinking": False},
|
||||
)
|
||||
print(completion.model_dump_json())
|
||||
except Exception as e:
|
||||
print(f"调用大模型失败: {str(e)}")
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if __name__ == "__main__":
|
||||
# 配置参数
|
||||
CONFIG = {
|
||||
"target_keys": "containers.cna.descriptions.0.value",
|
||||
"api_key": "sk-5ec7751941974a9cb5855f746fe45a62",
|
||||
"directory": "./data",
|
||||
"recursive": True,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
# 创建解析器实例
|
||||
parser = ContentParser(target_keys=CONFIG["target_keys"], api_key=CONFIG["api_key"])
|
||||
|
||||
# 开始处理
|
||||
parser.process_directory(
|
||||
directory=CONFIG["directory"], recursive=CONFIG["recursive"]
|
||||
)
|
||||
79
general_ai_analysis.py
Normal file
79
general_ai_analysis.py
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
|
||||
from os import truncate
|
||||
import re
|
||||
import json
|
||||
from openai import OpenAI
|
||||
from typing import Dict, List, Any
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def process_result(data: Any) -> str:
|
||||
# target_key = "choices.0.message.content"
|
||||
parts = ["choices", "0", "message", "content"]
|
||||
try:
|
||||
for part in parts:
|
||||
if isinstance(data, list):
|
||||
data = data[int(part)]
|
||||
else:
|
||||
data = data.get(part, None)
|
||||
if data is None:
|
||||
break
|
||||
return data
|
||||
except (KeyError, IndexError, TypeError):
|
||||
return "N/A"
|
||||
return "N/A"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def analyze_with_ai(data: str) -> str:
|
||||
prompt = """
|
||||
下面我会发给你一段文本，第一行是CVE的编号与文件位置信息，后续是这个CVE的详细描述。
|
||||
请分析我发送给你的CVE信息，并进行分析，我有三个分析要求：
|
||||
1. 分析这个CVE信息是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关；
|
||||
2. 分析这个CVE是否会导致容器，例如Docker等，在运行时会影响其他容器或宿主机；
|
||||
3. 如果条件1、2全部不满足，直接返回“N/A”，不需要附带任何信息。
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
client = OpenAI(
|
||||
api_key="sk-5ec7751941974a9cb5855f746fe45a62",
|
||||
base_url="https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1",
|
||||
)
|
||||
try:
|
||||
completion = client.chat.completions.create(
|
||||
# 模型列表：https://help.aliyun.com/zh/model-studio/getting-started/models
|
||||
model="qwen-plus",
|
||||
messages=[
|
||||
{"role": "system", "content": prompt},
|
||||
{"role": "user", "content": data},
|
||||
],
|
||||
# Qwen3模型通过enable_thinking参数控制思考过程（开源版默认True，商业版默认False）
|
||||
# 使用Qwen3开源版模型时，若未启用流式输出，请将下行取消注释，否则会报错
|
||||
# extra_body={"enable_thinking": False},
|
||||
)
|
||||
return process_result(json.loads(completion.model_dump_json()))
|
||||
except Exception as e:
|
||||
print(f"调用大模型失败: {str(e)}")
|
||||
return "N/A"
|
||||
return "N/A"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if __name__ == "__main__":
|
||||
pattern = r"\./data/.*x/CVE.*?\.json"
|
||||
regex = re.compile(pattern)
|
||||
|
||||
with open("keyword_filter_11-25.log", "r", encoding="utf-8") as file:
|
||||
text = file.read()
|
||||
matches = list(regex.finditer(text))
|
||||
|
||||
log = open("analysis_result.log", "w", encoding="utf-8")
|
||||
|
||||
# 如果没有找到任何匹配项
|
||||
if not matches:
|
||||
print("No match found.")
|
||||
else:
|
||||
for i in range(len(matches)):
|
||||
start = matches[i].start()
|
||||
# 如果不是最后一个匹配项，则end是下一个匹配项的起始位置；否则为文本末尾
|
||||
end = matches[i + 1].start() if i + 1 < len(matches) else len(text)
|
||||
block = text[start:end].strip()
|
||||
ans = analyze_with_ai(block)
|
||||
if ans == "N/A":
|
||||
continue
|
||||
log.write(f"cve: {block}, analysis: {ans}\n\n")
|
||||
1267
general_result/11-19.log
Normal file
1267
general_result/11-19.log
Normal file
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
741
general_result/20.log
Normal file
741
general_result/20.log
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,741 @@
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/10xxx/CVE-2020-10676.json
|
||||
In Rancher 2.x before 2.6.13 and 2.7.x before 2.7.4, an incorrectly applied authorization check allows users who have certain access to a namespace to move that namespace to a different project.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与 namespace 相关。描述中明确提到 "namespace"，并且问题涉及用户可以将某个 namespace 移动到不同的项目中。Namespace 是容器技术（如 Docker）中用于实现资源隔离的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
这个 CVE 的影响主要体现在 Rancher 的权限管理上。由于授权检查错误，拥有某些权限的用户可以将一个 namespace 移动到另一个项目中。这种操作可能会导致以下潜在风险：
|
||||
- 如果目标项目中的安全策略较松散，可能会间接影响该 namespace 下运行的容器的安全性。
|
||||
- 在多租户环境中，这种行为可能破坏预期的隔离边界，导致敏感信息泄露或权限提升。
|
||||
- 虽然直接危害宿主机的可能性较低，但通过改变 namespace 的归属关系，攻击者可能进一步利用其他漏洞扩大影响范围。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，这个 CVE 的确可能间接影响容器之间的隔离性，尤其是在多租户场景下。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/10xxx/CVE-2020-10689.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in the Eclipse Che up to version 7.8.x, where it did not properly restrict access to workspace pods. An authenticated user can exploit this flaw to bypass JWT proxy and gain access to the workspace pods of another user. Successful exploitation requires knowledge of the service name and namespace of the target pod.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器和命名空间相关。Eclipse Che 是一个基于容器的工作区开发环境，问题涉及对工作区 Pods（容器）的访问控制不当。Pods 是 Kubernetes 中的容器集合，而命名空间（namespace）是 Kubernetes 中用于隔离资源的概念。因此，该漏洞直接涉及容器和命名空间。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致影响其他容器。由于访问控制不足，攻击者可以通过此漏洞访问其他用户的 workspace pods，从而可能获取敏感信息或执行未经授权的操作。虽然该漏洞本身没有明确提到直接影响宿主机，但通过访问其他用户的工作区 Pods，攻击者可能会进一步利用其他漏洞来威胁宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/11xxx/CVE-2020-11492.json
|
||||
An issue was discovered in Docker Desktop through 2.2.0.5 on Windows. If a local attacker sets up their own named pipe prior to starting Docker with the same name, this attacker can intercept a connection attempt from Docker Service (which runs as SYSTEM), and then impersonate their privileges.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该CVE描述了在Docker Desktop for Windows中，通过创建同名的命名管道（named pipe），攻击者可以拦截Docker Service的连接尝试。此问题主要涉及Docker服务的权限管理和通信机制，而不是直接与namespace、cgroup、容器隔离机制相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞允许本地攻击者拦截Docker Service的连接，并利用其SYSTEM权限进行特权提升。这可能间接影响到宿主机的安全性，但并不直接影响其他容器的运行或隔离性。问题的核心在于Docker Service本身的权限管理漏洞，而非容器间的交互或隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/12xxx/CVE-2020-12114.json
|
||||
A pivot_root race condition in fs/namespace.c in the Linux kernel 4.4.x before 4.4.221, 4.9.x before 4.9.221, 4.14.x before 4.14.178, 4.19.x before 4.19.119, and 5.x before 5.3 allows local users to cause a denial of service (panic) by corrupting a mountpoint reference counter.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关。`pivot_root` 是一个与 Linux 命名空间（namespace）密切相关的系统调用，通常用于更改根文件系统，尤其是在容器化环境中初始化容器的根文件系统时。此外，问题出现在 `fs/namespace.c` 文件中，进一步表明它与命名空间机制有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，可能会对容器环境产生影响。由于 `pivot_root` 的竞争条件可能导致内核崩溃（panic），如果攻击者能够在容器内利用此漏洞，则可能破坏宿主机的稳定性，从而间接影响同一宿主机上的其他容器。虽然容器本身提供了一定的隔离性，但这种内核级别的漏洞可能会突破隔离，导致更广泛的影响。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2，因此需要进行上述分析。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/13xxx/CVE-2020-13401.json
|
||||
An issue was discovered in Docker Engine before 19.03.11. An attacker in a container, with the CAP_NET_RAW capability, can craft IPv6 router advertisements, and consequently spoof external IPv6 hosts, obtain sensitive information, or cause a denial of service.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到问题发生在 Docker Engine 中，并且攻击者需要在容器内具备 `CAP_NET_RAW` 能力。这表明问题与容器环境及其网络隔离机制密切相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，攻击者可以通过 crafting IPv6 router advertisements 来影响外部 IPv6 主机，从而可能导致敏感信息泄露或拒绝服务攻击。虽然描述中没有明确提到对其他容器或宿主机的直接影响，但通过网络层面的攻击，可能会间接影响到同一宿主机上的其他容器或宿主机本身（例如，通过路由欺骗导致流量被错误引导）。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/14xxx/CVE-2020-14298.json
|
||||
The version of docker as released for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extras via RHBA-2020:0053 advisory included an incorrect version of runc missing the fix for CVE-2019-5736, which was previously fixed via RHSA-2019:0304. This issue could allow a malicious or compromised container to compromise the container host and other containers running on the same host. This issue only affects docker version 1.13.1-108.git4ef4b30.el7, shipped in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extras. Both earlier and later versions are not affected.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离相关。
|
||||
- 描述中明确提到 "runc" 和 "container host"，并且问题涉及容器的运行时环境。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
- 描述中提到 "a malicious or compromised container to compromise the container host and other containers running on the same host"，表明恶意或被攻陷的容器可以影响宿主机和其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/14xxx/CVE-2020-14300.json
|
||||
The docker packages version docker-1.13.1-108.git4ef4b30.el7 as released for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extras via RHBA-2020:0053 (https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:0053) included an incorrect version of runc that was missing multiple bug and security fixes. One of the fixes regressed in that update was the fix for CVE-2016-9962, that was previously corrected in the docker packages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extras via RHSA-2017:0116 (https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0116). The CVE-2020-14300 was assigned to this security regression and it is specific to the docker packages produced by Red Hat. The original issue - CVE-2016-9962 - could possibly allow a process inside container to compromise a process entering container namespace and execute arbitrary code outside of the container. This could lead to compromise of the container host or other containers running on the same container host. This issue only affects a single version of Docker, 1.13.1-108.git4ef4b30, shipped in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. Both earlier and later versions are not affected.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息明确提到“process inside container”和“container namespace”，这表明问题与容器的命名空间（namespace）机制有关，涉及容器的隔离特性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，根据描述，CVE-2016-9962（该漏洞的原始问题）可能允许容器内的进程“compromise a process entering container namespace and execute arbitrary code outside of the container”。这意味着攻击者可以利用此漏洞突破容器隔离，执行任意代码，从而危及宿主机或其他在同一宿主机上运行的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/14xxx/CVE-2020-14306.json
|
||||
An incorrect access control flaw was found in the operator, openshift-service-mesh/istio-rhel8-operator all versions through 1.1.3. This flaw allows an attacker with a basic level of access to the cluster to deploy a custom gateway/pod to any namespace, potentially gaining access to privileged service account tokens. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。问题在于 OpenShift Service Mesh 的 Operator 中存在访问控制漏洞，允许攻击者在任何 namespace 下部署自定义网关或 Pod。Namespace 是 Kubernetes 中用于隔离资源的核心概念之一，因此此漏洞直接影响了 namespace 的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。攻击者可以利用此漏洞在未经授权的 namespace 中部署恶意 Pod，这些 Pod 可能会进一步访问其他 Pod、服务账户令牌或其他敏感资源。此外，如果攻击者获取了特权服务账户令牌，他们可能会对整个集群（包括宿主机和其他容器）造成更广泛的影响。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/14xxx/CVE-2020-14356.json
|
||||
A flaw null pointer dereference in the Linux kernel cgroupv2 subsystem in versions before 5.7.10 was found in the way when reboot the system. A local user could use this flaw to crash the system or escalate their privileges on the system.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 明确提到了 cgroupv2 子系统，因此与 cgroup 相关。Cgroup 是容器技术（如 Docker）中用于资源限制和隔离的重要组成部分，因此也间接与容器和隔离相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
由于该漏洞存在于 cgroupv2 子系统中，并且可能导致系统崩溃或权限提升，如果攻击者能够在容器内触发此漏洞，则可能会影响宿主机的稳定性或安全性。这可能会进一步影响同一宿主机上的其他容器，或者被利用来突破容器隔离，从而对宿主机或其他容器造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/14xxx/CVE-2020-14370.json
|
||||
An information disclosure vulnerability was found in containers/podman in versions before 2.0.5. When using the deprecated Varlink API or the Docker-compatible REST API, if multiple containers are created in a short duration, the environment variables from the first container will get leaked into subsequent containers. An attacker who has control over the subsequent containers could use this flaw to gain access to sensitive information stored in such variables.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到containers/podman中的问题，涉及容器环境变量的泄露。Podman是一个容器运行时工具，因此该问题与容器和隔离机制直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器之间的信息泄露。具体来说，当使用特定API创建多个容器时，第一个容器的环境变量可能会泄露到后续创建的容器中。如果攻击者能够控制这些后续容器，就可以获取敏感信息，从而影响其他容器的安全性。虽然这不会直接影响宿主机，但泄露的信息可能被利用来进一步攻击宿主机或其他系统组件。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/15xxx/CVE-2020-15157.json
|
||||
In containerd (an industry-standard container runtime) before version 1.2.14 there is a credential leaking vulnerability. If a container image manifest in the OCI Image format or Docker Image V2 Schema 2 format includes a URL for the location of a specific image layer (otherwise known as a “foreign layer”), the default containerd resolver will follow that URL to attempt to download it. In v1.2.x but not 1.3.0 or later, the default containerd resolver will provide its authentication credentials if the server where the URL is located presents an HTTP 401 status code along with registry-specific HTTP headers. If an attacker publishes a public image with a manifest that directs one of the layers to be fetched from a web server they control and they trick a user or system into pulling the image, they can obtain the credentials used for pulling that image. In some cases, this may be the user's username and password for the registry. In other cases, this may be the credentials attached to the cloud virtual instance which can grant access to other cloud resources in the account. The default containerd resolver is used by the cri-containerd plugin (which can be used by Kubernetes), the ctr development tool, and other client programs that have explicitly linked against it. This vulnerability has been fixed in containerd 1.2.14. containerd 1.3 and later are not affected. If you are using containerd 1.3 or later, you are not affected. If you are using cri-containerd in the 1.2 series or prior, you should ensure you only pull images from trusted sources. Other container runtimes built on top of containerd but not using the default resolver (such as Docker) are not affected.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 与容器相关。它涉及 containerd（一个容器运行时），并且问题出现在处理容器镜像的下载过程中，可能导致敏感信息泄露。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
此漏洞不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。它的主要影响是泄露用于拉取镜像的认证凭据（如用户名和密码或云实例的访问密钥）。这些凭据可能被攻击者滥用以访问其他资源，但漏洞本身并不直接破坏容器隔离或宿主机的安全边界。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 满足，条件 2 不满足，因此返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/15xxx/CVE-2020-15257.json
|
||||
containerd is an industry-standard container runtime and is available as a daemon for Linux and Windows. In containerd before versions 1.3.9 and 1.4.3, the containerd-shim API is improperly exposed to host network containers. Access controls for the shim’s API socket verified that the connecting process had an effective UID of 0, but did not otherwise restrict access to the abstract Unix domain socket. This would allow malicious containers running in the same network namespace as the shim, with an effective UID of 0 but otherwise reduced privileges, to cause new processes to be run with elevated privileges. This vulnerability has been fixed in containerd 1.3.9 and 1.4.3. Users should update to these versions as soon as they are released. It should be noted that containers started with an old version of containerd-shim should be stopped and restarted, as running containers will continue to be vulnerable even after an upgrade. If you are not providing the ability for untrusted users to start containers in the same network namespace as the shim (typically the "host" network namespace, for example with docker run --net=host or hostNetwork: true in a Kubernetes pod) and run with an effective UID of 0, you are not vulnerable to this issue. If you are running containers with a vulnerable configuration, you can deny access to all abstract sockets with AppArmor by adding a line similar to deny unix addr=@**, to your policy. It is best practice to run containers with a reduced set of privileges, with a non-zero UID, and with isolated namespaces. The containerd maintainers strongly advise against sharing namespaces with the host. Reducing the set of isolation mechanisms used for a container necessarily increases that container's privilege, regardless of what container runtime is used for running that container.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器和隔离机制密切相关。具体来说，问题出在`containerd-shim` API的暴露方式上，它没有正确限制对抽象Unix域套接字的访问，从而允许恶意容器在同一网络命名空间（network namespace）中利用此漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致恶意容器以提升的权限运行新进程。如果容器运行在与`containerd-shim`相同的网络命名空间中（例如使用`--net=host`选项），并且具有有效的UID为0，则可以利用此漏洞影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/15xxx/CVE-2020-15360.json
|
||||
com.docker.vmnetd in Docker Desktop 2.3.0.3 allows privilege escalation because of a lack of client verification.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器相关。它涉及 Docker Desktop 的 `com.docker.vmnetd` 组件，这是一个与 Docker 容器运行环境密切相关的服务。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，由于缺乏客户端验证，此漏洞可能导致特权 escalation。攻击者可能利用该漏洞突破容器的隔离机制，进而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据分析，该 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/15xxx/CVE-2020-15590.json
|
||||
A vulnerability in the Private Internet Access (PIA) VPN Client for Linux 1.5 through 2.3+ allows remote attackers to bypass an intended VPN kill switch mechanism and read sensitive information via intercepting network traffic. Since 1.5, PIA has supported a “split tunnel” OpenVPN bypass option. The PIA killswitch & associated iptables firewall is designed to protect you while using the Internet. When the kill switch is configured to block all inbound and outbound network traffic, privileged applications can continue sending & receiving network traffic if net.ipv4.ip_forward has been enabled in the system kernel parameters. For example, a Docker container running on a host with the VPN turned off, and the kill switch turned on, can continue using the internet, leaking the host IP (CWE 200). In PIA 2.4.0+, policy-based routing is enabled by default and is used to direct all forwarded packets to the VPN interface automatically.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 提及了 Docker 容器的行为。当系统的 `net.ipv4.ip_forward` 参数被启用时，即使 PIA 的 kill switch 配置为阻止所有入站和出站网络流量，Docker 容器仍然可以继续发送和接收网络流量。这表明该问题与容器的网络隔离机制相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致运行在宿主机上的 Docker 容器绕过 PIA 的 kill switch 机制，继续使用互联网，从而泄露宿主机的真实 IP 地址。这种行为会影响宿主机的安全性，并可能间接影响其他容器，因为宿主机的网络环境被暴露。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 该 CVE 信息满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/16xxx/CVE-2020-16120.json
|
||||
Overlayfs did not properly perform permission checking when copying up files in an overlayfs and could be exploited from within a user namespace, if, for example, unprivileged user namespaces were allowed. It was possible to have a file not readable by an unprivileged user to be copied to a mountpoint controlled by the user, like a removable device. This was introduced in kernel version 4.19 by commit d1d04ef ("ovl: stack file ops"). This was fixed in kernel version 5.8 by commits 56230d9 ("ovl: verify permissions in ovl_path_open()"), 48bd024 ("ovl: switch to mounter creds in readdir") and 05acefb ("ovl: check permission to open real file"). Additionally, commits 130fdbc ("ovl: pass correct flags for opening real directory") and 292f902 ("ovl: call secutiry hook in ovl_real_ioctl()") in kernel 5.8 might also be desired or necessary. These additional commits introduced a regression in overlay mounts within user namespaces which prevented access to files with ownership outside of the user namespace. This regression was mitigated by subsequent commit b6650da ("ovl: do not fail because of O_NOATIMEi") in kernel 5.11.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与namespace相关。具体来说，问题出现在Overlayfs中权限检查的不当实现，当从一个用户namespace内进行文件复制操作时，可能导致未授权访问文件的情况。此外，问题描述中明确提到“unprivileged user namespaces”，这表明它与用户namespace的隔离机制直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会影响容器的隔离性。如果容器使用了Overlayfs作为存储驱动（如Docker默认使用的overlay2），并且允许unprivileged user namespaces，攻击者可能利用此漏洞绕过权限限制，访问宿主机或其他容器中的文件。这种行为可能会破坏容器之间的隔离，甚至对宿主机造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析结果，而不是"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/24xxx/CVE-2020-24263.json
|
||||
Portainer 1.24.1 and earlier is affected by an insecure permissions vulnerability that may lead to remote arbitrary code execution. A non-admin user is allowed to spawn new containers with critical capabilities such as SYS_MODULE, which can be used to take over the Docker host.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器技术密切相关。它描述了 Portainer（一个用于管理 Docker 容器的工具）中的漏洞，允许非管理员用户以关键权限（如 SYS_MODULE）创建新容器。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致非管理员用户利用关键权限（如 SYS_MODULE）创建具有高权限的容器，从而可能完全控制 Docker 宿主机。这将打破容器与宿主机之间的隔离，进而可能影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/24xxx/CVE-2020-24264.json
|
||||
Portainer 1.24.1 and earlier is affected by incorrect access control that may lead to remote arbitrary code execution. The restriction checks for bind mounts are applied only on the client-side and not the server-side, which can lead to spawning a container with bind mount. Once such a container is spawned, it can be leveraged to break out of the container leading to complete Docker host machine takeover.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器和隔离相关。它描述了Portainer在处理bind mounts时的访问控制问题，可能导致生成一个具有bind mount的容器。此外，还提到容器可能被利用来突破隔离，从而导致Docker宿主机被完全接管。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞会导致容器在运行时影响宿主机。通过利用此漏洞，攻击者可以创建一个具有不当权限的容器，并利用该容器突破隔离机制，最终实现对Docker宿主机的完全控制。这表明不仅会影响其他容器，还会直接威胁到宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/25xxx/CVE-2020-25039.json
|
||||
Sylabs Singularity 3.2.0 through 3.6.2 has Insecure Permissions on temporary directories used in fakeroot or user namespace container execution.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该CVE明确提到了Sylabs Singularity（一个容器运行时）以及用户命名空间（user namespace）和临时目录的权限问题。因此，它与容器和命名空间（namespace）相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
由于该漏洞涉及不安全的临时目录权限，攻击者可能利用此漏洞在fakeroot或用户命名空间容器执行期间访问或修改其他文件，从而可能影响同一宿主机上的其他容器或宿主机本身的安全性。因此，该漏洞可能导致容器突破其隔离限制，进而影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回分析结果而非"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/25xxx/CVE-2020-25201.json
|
||||
HashiCorp Consul Enterprise version 1.7.0 up to 1.8.4 includes a namespace replication bug which can be triggered to cause denial of service via infinite Raft writes. Fixed in 1.7.9 and 1.8.5.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关，因为描述中提到 Consul Enterprise 中存在一个 "namespace replication bug"。
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 不会直接影响容器（如 Docker）的运行时行为，也不会影响其他容器或宿主机。它主要是一个与 HashiCorp Consul Enterprise 的 namespace 功能相关的拒绝服务漏洞，通过无限 Raft 写操作触发。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据分析要求：
|
||||
- 条件 1 部分满足（与 namespace 相关）。
|
||||
- 条件 2 不满足（不会影响其他容器或宿主机）。
|
||||
|
||||
最终结果：N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/25xxx/CVE-2020-25220.json
|
||||
The Linux kernel 4.9.x before 4.9.233, 4.14.x before 4.14.194, and 4.19.x before 4.19.140 has a use-after-free because skcd->no_refcnt was not considered during a backport of a CVE-2020-14356 patch. This is related to the cgroups feature.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 明确提到与 cgroups 功能相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
由于该漏洞涉及 cgroups 的 use-after-free 问题，cgroups 是 Linux 容器（如 Docker）实现资源限制和隔离的关键技术之一。如果此漏洞被利用，可能会导致容器逃逸或其他安全风险，从而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，该 CVE 满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/25xxx/CVE-2020-25636.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in Ansible Base when using the aws_ssm connection plugin as there is no namespace separation for file transfers. Files are written directly to the root bucket, making possible to have collisions when running multiple ansible processes. This issue affects mainly the service availability.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离相关。原因是描述中提到 "no namespace separation for file transfers"，表明文件传输过程中没有使用命名空间隔离，这直接影响了隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 尽管此问题涉及命名空间隔离的缺失，但它主要影响服务的可用性（service availability），例如由于文件冲突导致的问题。根据描述，这个问题并不会直接导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。它的影响范围更倾向于并行运行的 Ansible 进程之间的文件冲突，而不是跨容器或宿主机的安全威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：不满足条件 2，返回 N/A。**
|
||||
|
||||
N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/26xxx/CVE-2020-26213.json
|
||||
In teler before version 0.0.1, if you run teler inside a Docker container and encounter `errors.Exit` function, it will cause denial-of-service (`SIGSEGV`) because it doesn't get process ID and process group ID of teler properly to kills. The issue is patched in teler 0.0.1 and 0.0.1-dev5.1.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到问题发生在运行在 Docker 容器中的 teler 应用程序中。因此，它与容器技术（Docker）相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
根据描述，`errors.Exit` 函数的错误行为会导致容器内的 teler 进程崩溃（`SIGSEGV`），从而引发拒绝服务（DoS）。这种问题仅限于容器内部的 teler 应用程序本身，不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。因此，该漏洞的影响范围被限制在单个容器内。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：不满足条件 2，返回 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
**最终结果**：N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/26xxx/CVE-2020-26278.json
|
||||
Weave Net is open source software which creates a virtual network that connects Docker containers across multiple hosts and enables their automatic discovery. Weave Net before version 2.8.0 has a vulnerability in which can allow an attacker to take over any host in the cluster. Weave Net is supplied with a manifest that runs pods on every node in a Kubernetes cluster, which are responsible for managing network connections for all other pods in the cluster. This requires a lot of power over the host, and the manifest sets `privileged: true`, which gives it that power. It also set `hostPID: true`, which gave it the ability to access all other processes on the host, and write anywhere in the root filesystem of the host. This setting was not necessary, and is being removed. You are only vulnerable if you have an additional vulnerability (e.g. a bug in Kubernetes) or misconfiguration that allows an attacker to run code inside the Weave Net pod, No such bug is known at the time of release, and there are no known instances of this being exploited. Weave Net 2.8.0 removes the hostPID setting and moves CNI plugin install to an init container. Users who do not update to 2.8.0 can edit the hostPID line in their existing DaemonSet manifest to say false instead of true, arrange some other way to install CNI plugins (e.g. Ansible) and remove those mounts from the DaemonSet manifest.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与容器和隔离机制密切相关。Weave Net是一款用于连接Docker容器的虚拟网络工具，并且在Kubernetes集群中以特权模式（`privileged: true`）运行，同时还启用了`hostPID: true`，这直接影响了容器与宿主机之间的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器影响宿主机和其他容器。由于`hostPID: true`的设置，攻击者如果能够突破Weave Net Pod的安全边界，就可以访问宿主机上的所有进程，并对宿主机的根文件系统进行写操作。这种权限极大地削弱了容器与宿主机之间的隔离，使得攻击者可能进一步危害整个集群中的其他容器和节点。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/27xxx/CVE-2020-27352.json
|
||||
When generating the systemd service units for the docker snap (and other similar snaps), snapd does not specify Delegate=yes - as a result systemd will move processes from the containers created and managed by these snaps into the cgroup of the main daemon within the snap itself when reloading system units. This may grant additional privileges to a container within the snap that were not originally intended.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该CVE明确提到`snapd`在生成systemd服务单元时未正确设置`Delegate=yes`，导致systemd将容器中的进程移动到snap主守护进程的cgroup中。这直接涉及到了cgroup和容器的隔离机制，因此与cgroup和容器隔离相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
由于未设置`Delegate=yes`，容器中的进程被错误地移动到snap主守护进程的cgroup中，这可能导致容器获得额外的权限，这些权限原本是不属于容器的。这种行为可能破坏容器的隔离性，使容器能够影响宿主机或其他容器的资源分配和权限管理。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 与namespace、cgroup、container或容器隔离相关：**是**
|
||||
- 可能影响其他容器或宿主机：**是**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/27xxx/CVE-2020-27534.json
|
||||
util/binfmt_misc/check.go in Builder in Docker Engine before 19.03.9 calls os.OpenFile with a potentially unsafe qemu-check temporary pathname, constructed with an empty first argument in an ioutil.TempDir call.
|
||||
analysis: ### 分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器技术相关。具体来说，问题出现在 Docker Engine 的 `util/binfmt_misc/check.go` 文件中，这是 Docker 引擎的一部分，负责处理二进制格式（binfmt_misc）以支持跨架构的容器运行（例如通过 QEMU）。因此，它直接涉及容器技术。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致安全风险。由于 `os.OpenFile` 使用了潜在不安全的临时文件路径名（由 `ioutil.TempDir` 构造且第一个参数为空），这可能会导致临时文件被其他进程篡改或覆盖，从而引发竞争条件或权限提升问题。这种问题可能允许攻击者利用该漏洞影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
### 结论：
|
||||
- 条件 1 满足：与容器技术相关。
|
||||
- 条件 2 满足：可能影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/28xxx/CVE-2020-28348.json
|
||||
HashiCorp Nomad and Nomad Enterprise 0.9.0 up to 0.12.7 client Docker file sandbox feature may be subverted when not explicitly disabled or when using a volume mount type. Fixed in 0.12.8, 0.11.7, and 0.10.8.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器技术相关。它提到 HashiCorp Nomad 的 Docker 文件沙箱功能可能被破坏，而 Nomad 是一个用于管理容器化应用程序的工具。这涉及到容器的文件系统隔离问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器的安全隔离机制失效。如果 Docker 文件沙箱功能被破坏，攻击者可能利用此漏洞绕过隔离机制，从而对其他容器或宿主机造成潜在威胁。特别是当使用卷挂载类型时，这种风险更加明显。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和 2 均满足，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29373.json
|
||||
An issue was discovered in fs/io_uring.c in the Linux kernel before 5.6. It unsafely handles the root directory during path lookups, and thus a process inside a mount namespace can escape to unintended filesystem locations, aka CID-ff002b30181d.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和隔离相关。问题发生在 Linux 内核的 `fs/io_uring.c` 文件中，涉及对根目录在路径查找过程中的不安全处理，导致一个进程可以从挂载命名空间（mount namespace）中逃逸到未预期的文件系统位置。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 由于该漏洞允许进程从挂载命名空间中逃逸，这可能会破坏容器的隔离性。例如，在使用 Docker 等容器运行时，攻击者可能利用此漏洞影响其他容器或宿主机的文件系统。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29389.json
|
||||
The official Crux Linux Docker images 3.0 through 3.4 contain a blank password for a root user. System using the Crux Linux Docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow an attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器相关。它明确提到 Crux Linux Docker 镜像中存在安全问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该 CVE 的描述表明，受影响版本的 Crux Linux Docker 镜像包含一个空白密码的 root 用户，这可能导致攻击者通过该容器获取 root 权限。然而，这种漏洞的影响范围通常局限于单个容器本身，除非该容器被配置为以特权模式运行（privileged mode）或具有访问宿主机资源的权限。因此，在默认情况下，此漏洞不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机，但可能会成为进一步攻击的入口。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件 1 和条件 2 至少部分满足，因此返回分析结果，而不是 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29482.json
|
||||
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. A guest may access xenstore paths via absolute paths containing a full pathname, or via a relative path, which implicitly includes /local/domain/$DOMID for their own domain id. Management tools must access paths in guests' namespaces, necessarily using absolute paths. oxenstored imposes a pathname limit that is applied solely to the relative or absolute path specified by the client. Therefore, a guest can create paths in its own namespace which are too long for management tools to access. Depending on the toolstack in use, a malicious guest administrator might cause some management tools and debugging operations to fail. For example, a guest administrator can cause "xenstore-ls -r" to fail. However, a guest administrator cannot prevent the host administrator from tearing down the domain. All systems using oxenstored are vulnerable. Building and using oxenstored is the default in the upstream Xen distribution, if the Ocaml compiler is available. Systems using C xenstored are not vulnerable.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
该CVE信息涉及Xen虚拟化技术中的`xenstore`路径访问问题。`xenstore`是一个用于在Xen环境中进行域间通信的小型键值存储系统，主要用于管理工具和客户机之间的交互。虽然这不是直接关于Linux namespace或cgroup的技术，但它涉及到虚拟化环境中的隔离问题，特别是客户机（guest）与管理工具之间的交互。因此，可以认为它与隔离机制相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
该漏洞主要影响Xen虚拟化环境，而不是容器技术（如Docker）。虽然Xen和容器都属于虚拟化技术，但它们的实现方式不同。Xen是基于硬件虚拟化的完全虚拟化技术，而Docker是基于Linux namespace和cgroup的轻量级容器技术。此漏洞不会直接影响Docker或其他容器技术的运行时行为，也不会导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
根据以上分析，该CVE信息与隔离机制相关，但不适用于容器技术（如Docker）。因此，返回结果为：
|
||||
**N/A**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29564.json
|
||||
The official Consul Docker images 0.7.1 through 1.4.2 contain a blank password for a root user. System using the Consul Docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息与容器相关。它明确提到了 Consul Docker 镜像的问题，这涉及到容器的配置和使用。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致安全风险。由于存在一个带有空白密码的 root 用户，攻击者可以利用此漏洞获取容器内的 root 权限。如果容器的隔离机制不够完善（例如共享宿主机的文件系统或其他资源），攻击者可能进一步利用该权限影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
该 CVE 满足条件 1 和 2，因此不会返回 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29575.json
|
||||
The official elixir Docker images before 1.8.0-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. Systems using the elixir Linux Docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息与容器相关。它明确提到了官方的 Elixir Docker 镜像在特定版本中存在安全问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
这个 CVE 可能会影响宿主机的安全性。由于镜像中 root 用户的密码为空，攻击者可以通过该漏洞获取容器内的 root 权限。如果容器的配置不当（例如以特权模式运行或共享宿主机的文件系统），攻击者可能进一步利用此权限逃逸容器并影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
不返回 N/A，因为条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29576.json
|
||||
The official eggdrop Docker images before 1.8.4rc2 contain a blank password for a root user. Systems using the Eggdrop Docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow an remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 明确提到的是 Eggdrop 的 Docker 镜像，因此与容器技术直接相关。它涉及容器中的用户配置问题，但并未直接提及 namespace 或 cgroup。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
由于该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内 root 权限，这可能会进一步被利用来尝试突破容器隔离机制，从而可能影响宿主机或其他共享宿主机资源的容器。虽然漏洞本身仅限于容器内的 root 访问，但结合其他潜在漏洞（如逃逸漏洞），可能会对宿主机或其它容器造成间接威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29577.json
|
||||
The official znc docker images before 1.7.1-slim contain a blank password for a root user. Systems using the znc docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow an remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 明确提到了 ZNC 的 Docker 镜像问题，涉及容器的配置和安全性。因此与容器相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，由于该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内的 root 权限，这可能会进一步被利用来突破容器隔离，进而影响宿主机或其他共享同一宿主机的容器。具体风险取决于容器的配置（如是否启用 privileged 模式、是否共享宿主机资源等）。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29578.json
|
||||
The official piwik Docker images before fpm-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. Systems using the Piwik Docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow an remote attacker to achieve root access.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息与容器相关。它明确提到 Piwik 的官方 Docker 镜像存在漏洞，且描述中提到了 Docker 容器的部署和使用。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
有可能。由于该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白 root 密码获得容器的 root 权限，攻击者可能进一步利用此权限尝试逃逸容器环境，从而影响宿主机或其他容器。虽然漏洞本身并未直接提及容器逃逸，但获得容器内 root 权限是潜在威胁的第一步。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，基于以上两点分析，该 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29579.json
|
||||
The official Express Gateway Docker images before 1.14.0 contain a blank password for a root user. Systems using the Express Gateway Docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow an remote attacker to achieve root access.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 明确提到 Express Gateway 的 Docker 镜像存在安全问题。Docker 镜像是容器技术的一部分，因此与容器相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内的 root 权限。虽然此问题直接影响的是单个容器，但如果容器配置了不恰当的权限（例如以特权模式运行或共享宿主机的命名空间），攻击者可能进一步利用此权限影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29580.json
|
||||
The official storm Docker images before 1.2.1 contain a blank password for a root user. Systems using the Storm Docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow an remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到了Storm Docker镜像的问题，涉及Docker容器的使用。因此，它与容器技术相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获取容器内的root访问权限。然而，根据描述，问题仅限于容器内部的安全性问题（即攻击者可以通过空白密码登录容器）。如果没有进一步突破容器隔离机制（如利用其他漏洞逃逸），攻击者不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。因此，在默认情况下，此漏洞不会直接导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：不满足条件2，返回“N/A”。
|
||||
|
||||
**最终答案**：N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29581.json
|
||||
The official spiped docker images before 1.5-alpine contain a blank password for a root user. Systems using the spiped docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow an remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到了Docker镜像（spiped docker images），并且涉及容器的部署和使用。因此，它与容器技术直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内的root权限。虽然此问题主要影响单个容器的安全性，但如果容器配置不当（例如共享宿主机的文件系统、网络命名空间或使用了特权模式），攻击者可能进一步利用容器内的权限访问宿主机或其他容器。因此，存在一定的风险影响到宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
该CVE与容器技术相关，并且在特定条件下可能会影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29591.json
|
||||
Versions of the Official registry Docker images through 2.7.0 contain a blank password for the root user. Systems deployed using affected versions of the registry container may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息与容器相关。它描述了 Docker 官方 registry 镜像中存在的安全问题，涉及容器化环境中的 registry 服务。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致容器运行时的安全风险。由于 registry 容器中 root 用户存在空白密码，攻击者可以利用此漏洞获得容器内的 root 权限。如果该容器共享了宿主机的文件系统或其他敏感资源（例如通过挂载宿主机目录或配置不当的 cgroups 和 namespaces），则可能进一步影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
不适用 "N/A"，因为条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29601.json
|
||||
The official notary docker images before signer-0.6.1-1 contain a blank password for a root user. System using the notary docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow an remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到了 Docker 容器（notary docker container），因此与容器技术相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空密码获得容器内的 root 权限。虽然问题本身是针对单个容器的配置缺陷，但如果容器没有正确配置隔离机制（例如共享宿主机的文件系统或其他资源），攻击者可能进一步利用此权限影响宿主机或其他容器。因此，从潜在风险角度，该漏洞可能会间接影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 和 2 都满足，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/29xxx/CVE-2020-29602.json
|
||||
The official irssi docker images before 1.1-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the irssi docker container deployed by affected versions of the Docker image may allow an remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息明确提到了 Docker 容器（irssi docker container）以及其配置问题。因此，它与容器技术相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
此漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内 root 用户的访问权限。虽然该漏洞本身主要影响单个容器的安全性，但如果容器以特权模式运行或共享某些资源（如卷或网络命名空间），攻击者可能进一步利用此权限影响宿主机或其他容器。因此，从理论上讲，此漏洞可能会间接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35184.json
|
||||
The official composer docker images before 1.8.3 contain a blank password for a root user. System using the composer docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离机制无直接关系。问题的核心是官方 Composer Docker 镜像中存在一个空白密码的 root 用户，这属于镜像本身的配置问题，而非容器或隔离技术本身的漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致运行受影响版本的 Composer Docker 容器时，远程攻击者可以通过空白密码获取容器内的 root 权限。然而，这种影响通常被限制在容器内部，除非容器配置为以特权模式运行（privileged mode）或共享宿主机的文件系统、网络等资源，否则不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
- 如果容器以默认非特权模式运行，攻击范围被限制在容器内部。
|
||||
- 如果容器以特权模式运行或与其他容器/宿主机共享敏感资源，则可能间接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据分析要求，返回以下结果：
|
||||
```
|
||||
N/A
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35185.json
|
||||
The official ghost docker images before 2.16.1-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the ghost docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息与容器相关。它明确提到 Ghost Docker 镜像在特定版本中存在一个问题，即 root 用户的密码为空。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
这个 CVE 可能会导致容器内的安全风险，因为攻击者可以通过空密码获取容器内 root 权限。然而，从描述来看，问题主要局限于单个容器本身，而不是直接影响其他容器或宿主机。不过，如果该容器配置了特权模式（privileged mode）或共享了宿主机的资源（如卷挂载），则可能会间接影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2 的部分分析要求。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35186.json
|
||||
The official adminer docker images before 4.7.0-fastcgi contain a blank password for a root user. System using the adminer docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 明确提到与 Docker 容器相关，具体是 Adminer 的官方 Docker 镜像在 4.7.0-fastcgi 之前的版本中存在问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内的 root 权限。虽然直接描述中没有明确提到对其他容器或宿主机的影响，但如果攻击者获得了容器的 root 权限，并且该容器的隔离配置不严格（例如共享宿主机的文件系统或其他资源），则可能进一步利用此权限影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，基于以上分析，返回结果为：
|
||||
**满足条件 1 和 2**。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35187.json
|
||||
The official telegraf docker images before 1.9.4-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the telegraf docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 与容器相关。它涉及官方的 Telegraf Docker 镜像，其中包含一个空白密码的 root 用户。这直接影响到容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，这可能会导致影响。由于镜像中存在空白密码的 root 用户，攻击者可以通过此漏洞获得容器内的 root 访问权限。如果容器的配置不当（例如以特权模式运行或共享宿主机的文件系统），攻击者可能进一步利用该权限逃逸容器并影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35189.json
|
||||
The official kong docker images before 1.0.2-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the kong docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到 Kong 的官方 Docker 镜像存在问题，涉及到容器的配置。Docker 容器是一种基于 namespace 和 cgroup 技术实现的隔离环境，因此与容器和隔离相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内的 root 权限。如果该容器共享了宿主机的文件系统或其他资源（例如通过绑定挂载或不恰当的权限配置），攻击者可能进一步利用此权限影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。此外，如果容器运行在同一个网络中且未正确隔离，也可能对其他容器造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35190.json
|
||||
The official plone Docker images before version of 4.3.18-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the plone docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器相关。原因是它明确提到了 Plone 的 Docker 镜像，并且描述了在使用这些镜像时可能存在的安全问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响宿主机的安全性。由于镜像中的 root 用户密码为空，攻击者可以通过此漏洞获得容器的 root 权限。如果容器没有正确配置隔离（如共享宿主机的用户命名空间），攻击者可能进一步利用此权限逃逸到宿主机或影响其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据分析要求，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35191.json
|
||||
The official drupal docker images before 8.5.10-fpm-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the drupal docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息明确提到Drupal的官方Docker镜像存在问题，涉及容器的配置（具体为Alpine版本的Docker镜像中root用户的空白密码）。这与容器的配置和安全性直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，由于容器中的root用户密码为空，攻击者可以利用这一漏洞轻易获得容器内的root权限。如果容器的隔离机制被破坏（例如共享宿主机的文件系统或其他资源），则可能进一步影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。此外，如果容器以特权模式运行（privileged mode），这种风险会更加显著。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据以上分析，条件1和2均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35192.json
|
||||
The official vault docker images before 0.11.6 contain a blank password for a root user. System using the vault docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息与容器相关。它明确提到官方的 Vault Docker 镜像存在问题，影响使用该镜像部署的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
从描述来看，此漏洞允许攻击者通过空白密码获取容器内的 root 权限。虽然这直接影响到容器本身的安全性，但并未提及对其他容器或宿主机的直接影响。然而，如果攻击者获得了容器的 root 权限，并且容器配置了不恰当的权限（例如以特权模式运行或共享宿主机的资源），则有可能进一步影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和 2 部分满足，因此需要返回分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35195.json
|
||||
The official haproxy docker images before 1.8.18-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the haproxy docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器相关。它明确提到 HAProxy 的官方 Docker 镜像在特定版本中存在一个问题，即 root 用户的密码为空。这直接影响到使用该镜像部署的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致安全风险。由于容器中的 root 用户密码为空，攻击者可以利用此漏洞轻易获得容器内的 root 权限。如果容器的隔离机制（如 namespace 或 cgroup）配置不当，或者容器以特权模式运行，攻击者可能进一步突破容器隔离，影响宿主机或其他容器的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：该 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35196.json
|
||||
The official rabbitmq docker images before 3.7.13-beta.1-management-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the rabbitmq docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到 RabbitMQ 的官方 Docker 镜像中存在一个问题，涉及容器的配置。Docker 容器是一种轻量级的虚拟化技术，基于 namespace 和 cgroup 实现隔离。因此，该问题与容器和隔离机制间接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致安全风险。由于镜像中 root 用户的密码为空，攻击者可以利用此漏洞获得容器内的 root 权限。如果容器的配置不当（例如以特权模式运行或共享宿主机的文件系统），攻击者可能进一步影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
该 CVE 满足条件 1 和 2，因此不会返回 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35197.json
|
||||
The official memcached docker images before 1.5.11-alpine (Alpine specific) contain a blank password for a root user. System using the memcached docker container deployed by affected versions of the docker image may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到了官方的memcached Docker镜像，因此与容器技术（Docker）直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内的root访问权限。虽然这直接影响的是容器本身，但如果容器没有正确配置隔离机制（如共享宿主机的文件系统或其他资源），攻击者可能进一步利用此权限逃逸容器，进而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和2，存在潜在风险。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35453.json
|
||||
HashiCorp Vault Enterprise’s Sentinel EGP policy feature incorrectly allowed requests to be processed in parent and sibling namespaces. Fixed in 1.5.6 and 1.6.1.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到了“namespaces”，并且涉及HashiCorp Vault Enterprise中的Sentinel EGP策略对请求处理的错误行为。这与命名空间（namespace）及其隔离特性直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
虽然该漏洞涉及命名空间的错误处理，但它具体影响的是HashiCorp Vault Enterprise的Sentinel EGP策略，而不是容器运行时（如Docker）。因此，它不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。然而，如果HashiCorp Vault Enterprise被用于容器编排环境中（例如Kubernetes），这种漏洞可能会间接影响整体系统的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：不满足条件2，但满足条件1，因此返回分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35462.json
|
||||
Version 3.16.0 of the CoScale agent Docker image contains a blank password for the root user. Systems deployed using affected versions of the CoScale agent container may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 与容器相关。问题出现在 CoScale agent 的 Docker 镜像中，涉及容器的安全配置。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致安全风险扩散。由于容器中的 root 用户没有密码保护，攻击者可以通过此漏洞获得容器的 root 权限，并可能进一步利用容器逃逸技术（如果存在其他漏洞）影响宿主机或其他共享同一宿主机的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
不适用 "N/A"，因为条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35463.json
|
||||
Version 1.0.0 of the Instana Dynamic APM Docker image contains a blank password for the root user. Systems deployed using affected versions of the Instana Dynamic APM container may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离相关。原因是它涉及 Docker 容器镜像的安全问题，具体是 Instana Dynamic APM Docker 镜像中 root 用户的空白密码问题，这直接影响容器的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器在运行时影响宿主机或其他容器。如果攻击者利用空白密码获得容器内的 root 权限，他们可能进一步利用容器逃逸漏洞（如果存在）危害宿主机或通过共享资源（如网络或卷挂载）影响其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35464.json
|
||||
Version 1.3.0 of the Weave Cloud Agent Docker image contains a blank password for the root user. Systems deployed using affected versions of the Weave Cloud Agent container may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离相关。原因是它涉及到 Weave Cloud Agent 容器镜像的配置问题，具体是镜像中 root 用户的空白密码问题，这直接影响到容器的安全性以及潜在的隔离风险。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器在运行时影响宿主机或其他容器。如果攻击者利用空白密码获取容器内的 root 权限，他们可以进一步突破容器隔离机制（例如通过共享内核漏洞或错误配置），从而对宿主机或其他容器造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35466.json
|
||||
The Blackfire Docker image through 2020-12-14 contains a blank password for the root user. Systems deployed using affected versions of the Blackfire container may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器相关。它明确提到 Blackfire 的 Docker 镜像中存在安全问题，而 Docker 是一种容器技术。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 可能会影响其他容器或宿主机。由于 root 用户密码为空，攻击者可以轻松获得容器内的 root 权限。如果容器没有正确配置隔离机制（例如共享宿主机的文件系统或其他资源），攻击者可能进一步利用此权限逃逸到宿主机，或者影响同一宿主机上的其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35467.json
|
||||
The Docker Docs Docker image through 2020-12-14 contains a blank password for the root user. Systems deployed using affected versions of the Docker Docs container may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 与容器相关。它涉及到 Docker Docs 容器镜像中的配置问题，具体是 root 用户的空白密码。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
这个 CVE 可能会间接影响宿主机的安全性。如果攻击者利用空白密码获得容器内的 root 权限，他们可能会进一步利用容器逃逸漏洞（如果存在）来危害宿主机或其他容器。虽然该 CVE 本身不直接导致容器逃逸，但它显著增加了攻击面，使系统更容易受到进一步攻击。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据上述分析，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35468.json
|
||||
The Appbase streams Docker image 2.1.2 contains a blank password for the root user. Systems deployed using affected versions of the streams container may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离相关。原因是它提到了 Docker 镜像中的配置问题，这直接影响到容器的部署和安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器在运行时影响宿主机或其他容器。由于根用户密码为空，攻击者可以利用此漏洞获取容器内的 root 权限。如果容器的隔离机制（如 namespace 或 cgroup）被不当配置或存在其他漏洞，攻击者可能进一步逃逸容器，从而影响宿主机或其他容器的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/35xxx/CVE-2020-35469.json
|
||||
The Software AG Terracotta Server OSS Docker image 5.4.1 contains a blank password for the root user. Systems deployed using affected versions of the Terracotta Server OSS container may allow a remote attacker to achieve root access with a blank password.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 与容器相关。它明确提到 Software AG Terracotta Server OSS 的 Docker 镜像存在安全问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
这个 CVE 允许远程攻击者通过空白密码获得容器内 root 用户的访问权限。虽然这直接影响的是特定容器本身，但如果容器配置不当（例如以特权模式运行或共享宿主机的文件系统、网络等资源），攻击者可能进一步利用该漏洞影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/36xxx/CVE-2020-36694.json
|
||||
An issue was discovered in netfilter in the Linux kernel before 5.10. There can be a use-after-free in the packet processing context, because the per-CPU sequence count is mishandled during concurrent iptables rules replacement. This could be exploited with the CAP_NET_ADMIN capability in an unprivileged namespace. NOTE: cc00bca was reverted in 5.12.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 与 namespace 相关。问题描述中提到 "CAP_NET_ADMIN capability in an unprivileged namespace"，说明攻击者需要在一个非特权的 namespace 中具备 `CAP_NET_ADMIN` 权限才能利用该漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
可能会。虽然漏洞本身是由于 netfilter 模块中的 use-after-free 引起的，但因为攻击者可以在一个非特权的 namespace 中利用此漏洞，这可能允许攻击者突破容器的隔离机制，进而影响其他容器或宿主机。具体影响取决于攻击者如何利用该漏洞以及系统的配置。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/3xxx/CVE-2020-3393.json
|
||||
A vulnerability in the application-hosting subsystem of Cisco IOS XE Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to elevate privileges to root on an affected device. The attacker could execute IOS XE commands outside the application-hosting subsystem Docker container as well as on the underlying Linux operating system. These commands could be run as the root user. The vulnerability is due to a combination of two factors: (a) incomplete input validation of the user payload of CLI commands, and (b) improper role-based access control (RBAC) when commands are issued at the command line within the application-hosting subsystem. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by using a CLI command with crafted user input. A successful exploit could allow the lower-privileged attacker to execute arbitrary CLI commands with root privileges. The attacker would need valid user credentials to exploit this vulnerability.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞与容器和隔离相关。描述中明确提到“application-hosting subsystem Docker container”，即应用托管子系统的 Docker 容器。此外，还提到攻击者可以突破容器限制，在宿主机的 Linux 操作系统上执行命令。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器突破隔离机制，影响宿主机。攻击者可以通过利用此漏洞，在宿主机的 Linux 系统上以 root 权限执行任意命令，从而可能影响其他容器或整个宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：该 CVE 信息满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/3xxx/CVE-2020-3396.json
|
||||
A vulnerability in the file system on the pluggable USB 3.0 Solid State Drive (SSD) for Cisco IOS XE Software could allow an authenticated, physical attacker to remove the USB 3.0 SSD and modify sensitive areas of the file system, including the namespace container protections. The vulnerability occurs because the USB 3.0 SSD control data is not stored on the internal boot flash. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by removing the USB 3.0 SSD, modifying or deleting files on the USB 3.0 SSD by using another device, and then reinserting the USB 3.0 SSD on the original device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to remove container protections and perform file actions outside the namespace of the container with root privileges.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息明确提到了“namespace container protections”以及“file actions outside the namespace of the container”。这表明漏洞涉及容器的命名空间隔离机制，并允许攻击者突破这种隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，根据描述，攻击者可以通过修改USB 3.0 SSD上的文件来移除容器的保护机制，并以root权限执行文件操作，超出容器的命名空间限制。这意味着攻击者可能会影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性，破坏隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
该CVE与容器隔离机制相关，并可能导致容器突破隔离，影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/3xxx/CVE-2020-3514.json
|
||||
A vulnerability in the multi-instance feature of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to escape the container for their Cisco FTD instance and execute commands with root privileges in the host namespace. The attacker must have valid credentials on the device.The vulnerability exists because a configuration file that is used at container startup has insufficient protections. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by modifying a specific container configuration file on the underlying file system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute commands with root privileges within the host namespace. This could allow the attacker to impact other running Cisco FTD instances or the host Cisco FXOS device.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 明确提到 Cisco FTD 的多实例功能中的容器逃逸问题。攻击者可以通过修改容器启动时使用的配置文件，从而逃逸到主机的命名空间（host namespace）。这直接涉及容器隔离机制的漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，成功利用此漏洞后，攻击者可以在主机命名空间中以 root 权限执行命令。这将允许攻击者影响其他正在运行的 Cisco FTD 实例或宿主机本身（Cisco FXOS 设备）。因此，此漏洞确实会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/5xxx/CVE-2020-5291.json
|
||||
Bubblewrap (bwrap) before version 0.4.1, if installed in setuid mode and the kernel supports unprivileged user namespaces, then the `bwrap --userns2` option can be used to make the setuid process keep running as root while being traceable. This can in turn be used to gain root permissions. Note that this only affects the combination of bubblewrap in setuid mode (which is typically used when unprivileged user namespaces are not supported) and the support of unprivileged user namespaces. Known to be affected are: * Debian testing/unstable, if unprivileged user namespaces enabled (not default) * Debian buster-backports, if unprivileged user namespaces enabled (not default) * Arch if using `linux-hardened`, if unprivileged user namespaces enabled (not default) * Centos 7 flatpak COPR, if unprivileged user namespaces enabled (not default) This has been fixed in the 0.4.1 release, and all affected users should update.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与 namespace 相关。具体来说，它涉及到 Bubblewrap 的 `--userns2` 选项以及 unprivileged user namespaces 的使用。User namespaces 是 Linux 中用于实现用户隔离的一种机制，通常在容器技术（如 Docker 和 Podman）中被广泛使用。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
可能会。该漏洞允许在特定条件下（Bubblewrap 以 setuid 模式运行且内核支持 unprivileged user namespaces），通过 `--userns2` 选项让进程以 root 权限继续运行并保持可追踪性，从而可能被利用来获取 root 权限。如果这种漏洞出现在容器环境中，攻击者可能利用此漏洞突破容器的隔离，进而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此需要返回上述分析内容，而不是 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/7xxx/CVE-2020-7606.json
|
||||
docker-compose-remote-api through 0.1.4 allows execution of arbitrary commands. Within 'index.js' of the package, the function 'exec(serviceName, cmd, fnStdout, fnStderr, fnExit)' uses the variable 'serviceName' which can be controlled by users without any sanitization.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该CVE信息与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离无直接相关性。虽然提到了`docker-compose-remote-api`，但问题是出在`index.js`中的`exec`函数对用户输入的`serviceName`变量未进行 sanitization（净化），从而导致任意命令执行漏洞，而不是容器本身的隔离机制或资源管理问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该CVE可能会间接影响容器的安全性。如果攻击者利用此漏洞在运行`docker-compose-remote-api`的服务中执行任意命令，可能会影响宿主机或其他容器，具体取决于该服务的权限以及运行环境。例如，如果该服务以root权限运行，并且可以访问Docker守护进程，则攻击者可能通过此漏洞控制其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
结论：满足条件2，因此返回分析结果而非"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/8xxx/CVE-2020-8553.json
|
||||
The Kubernetes ingress-nginx component prior to version 0.28.0 allows a user with the ability to create namespaces and to read and create ingress objects to overwrite the password file of another ingress which uses nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/auth-type: basic and which has a hyphenated namespace or secret name.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该CVE提到Kubernetes中的ingress-nginx组件，涉及namespace的创建以及ingress对象的读取和创建操作。这表明它与Kubernetes的namespace机制相关，但并未直接提及cgroup、container或容器隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞允许攻击者覆盖另一个使用`nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/auth-type: basic`的ingress的密码文件，前提是目标ingress所在的namespace或secret名称包含连字符。这种行为可能会影响同一Kubernetes集群中其他ingress资源的安全性，但它并不直接影响容器的运行时行为或宿主机的安全性。因此，不会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
根据上述分析，虽然该CVE与Kubernetes的namespace相关，但不涉及容器运行时或宿主机的安全性问题，也不直接影响容器隔离机制。因此，返回结果为：
|
||||
**N/A**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/8xxx/CVE-2020-8558.json
|
||||
The Kubelet and kube-proxy components in versions 1.1.0-1.16.10, 1.17.0-1.17.6, and 1.18.0-1.18.3 were found to contain a security issue which allows adjacent hosts to reach TCP and UDP services bound to 127.0.0.1 running on the node or in the node's network namespace. Such a service is generally thought to be reachable only by other processes on the same host, but due to this defeect, could be reachable by other hosts on the same LAN as the node, or by containers running on the same node as the service.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与容器和网络命名空间（network namespace）相关。问题的核心在于kube-proxy和Kubelet组件的缺陷导致绑定到127.0.0.1的服务在某些情况下可以被同一节点上的其他容器访问，这破坏了预期的网络隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致运行在同一节点上的容器访问原本仅应由本地进程访问的服务（绑定到127.0.0.1的服务）。这种行为可能会泄露敏感信息或提供攻击者对宿主机或其他容器的进一步攻击途径。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
条件1和条件2均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/8xxx/CVE-2020-8564.json
|
||||
In Kubernetes clusters using a logging level of at least 4, processing a malformed docker config file will result in the contents of the docker config file being leaked, which can include pull secrets or other registry credentials. This affects < v1.19.3, < v1.18.10, < v1.17.13.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是。该 CVE 提及 Kubernetes 集群和 Docker 配置文件，这表明它与容器技术密切相关。具体来说，Docker 配置文件可能包含敏感信息（如拉取密钥或其他注册表凭据），这些信息的泄露会影响容器环境的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
否。根据描述，该漏洞导致的是 Docker 配置文件内容的泄露，而不是直接破坏容器之间的隔离性或影响宿主机的稳定性。虽然泄露的凭据可能间接被滥用以访问其他资源，但本身并不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 不完全满足条件 2，因此返回 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/8xxx/CVE-2020-8907.json
|
||||
A vulnerability in Google Cloud Platform's guest-oslogin versions between 20190304 and 20200507 allows a user that is only granted the role "roles/compute.osLogin" to escalate privileges to root. Using their membership to the "docker" group, an attacker with this role is able to run docker and mount the host OS. Within docker, it is possible to modify the host OS filesystem and modify /etc/groups to gain administrative privileges. All images created after 2020-May-07 (20200507) are fixed, and if you cannot update, we recommend you edit /etc/group/security.conf and remove the "docker" user from the OS Login entry.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器和隔离相关。描述中提到攻击者利用其对 "docker" 组的成员身份，运行 Docker 容器并挂载宿主机的操作系统文件系统。这表明问题涉及容器技术（Docker）以及宿主机与容器之间的隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器运行时影响宿主机。攻击者可以通过 Docker 容器修改宿主机的文件系统（例如 `/etc/groups`），从而获得更高的权限（如 root 权限）。这种行为破坏了容器与宿主机之间的隔离，可能会对宿主机的安全性造成严重影响。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2020/8xxx/CVE-2020-8945.json
|
||||
The proglottis Go wrapper before 0.1.1 for the GPGME library has a use-after-free, as demonstrated by use for container image pulls by Docker or CRI-O. This leads to a crash or potential code execution during GPG signature verification.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 提及了 "container image pulls by Docker or CRI-O"，这表明问题与容器技术（如 Docker 和 CRI-O）相关。具体来说，问题出现在使用 GPGME 库进行 GPG 签名验证时，而这一操作在容器镜像拉取过程中被触发。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
有可能。由于这是一个 use-after-free 漏洞，攻击者可能利用此漏洞导致程序崩溃或执行任意代码。如果漏洞被成功利用，并且签名验证发生在特权环境中（例如宿主机上的容器运行时守护进程），则可能导致容器逃逸，从而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此需要返回分析结果。
|
||||
687
general_result/21.log
Normal file
687
general_result/21.log
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,687 @@
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/1xxx/CVE-2021-1559.json
|
||||
Multiple vulnerabilities in Cisco DNA Spaces Connector could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to perform a command injection attack on an affected device. These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient input sanitization when executing affected commands. A high-privileged attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities on a Cisco DNA Spaces Connector by injecting crafted input during command execution. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root within the Connector docker container.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到攻击者可以在Cisco DNA Spaces Connector的Docker容器中执行任意命令。这涉及到容器技术以及其隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
由于攻击者可以以root权限在受影响的Docker容器中执行任意命令，这种行为可能会突破容器的隔离机制。如果该容器没有正确配置（例如共享了宿主机的文件系统或其他资源），则可能导致攻击者进一步影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/1xxx/CVE-2021-1560.json
|
||||
Multiple vulnerabilities in Cisco DNA Spaces Connector could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to perform a command injection attack on an affected device. These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient input sanitization when executing affected commands. A high-privileged attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities on a Cisco DNA Spaces Connector by injecting crafted input during command execution. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root within the Connector docker container.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞涉及容器（Docker）。具体来说，漏洞允许攻击者在 Cisco DNA Spaces Connector 的 Docker 容器中以 root 权限执行任意命令。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
从描述来看，攻击者可以执行任意命令，但这些命令的执行范围被限制在 "Connector docker container" 中。如果没有提到容器逃逸（container escape）或其他直接影响宿主机的行为，那么此漏洞的影响仅限于受影响的容器本身，不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。不过，如果该容器具有对宿主机敏感资源的访问权限（例如挂载了宿主机的关键目录），则可能会间接影响宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1，部分满足条件 2（取决于容器配置）。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/20xxx/CVE-2021-20182.json
|
||||
A privilege escalation flaw was found in openshift4/ose-docker-builder. The build container runs with high privileges using a chrooted environment instead of runc. If an attacker can gain access to this build container, they can potentially utilize the raw devices of the underlying node, such as the network and storage devices, to at least escalate their privileges to that of the cluster admin. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器和隔离相关。描述中提到“build container”运行在高权限下，并且使用了“chrooted environment”而不是“runc”。这表明问题涉及容器的运行环境及其隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致影响宿主机或其他容器。攻击者如果获取了构建容器的访问权限，可以利用底层节点的原始设备（如网络和存储设备），从而可能突破容器隔离，影响宿主机或集群中的其他资源，并进一步提升权限至集群管理员级别。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/20xxx/CVE-2021-20194.json
|
||||
There is a vulnerability in the linux kernel versions higher than 5.2 (if kernel compiled with config params CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL=y , CONFIG_BPF=y , CONFIG_CGROUPS=y , CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF=y , CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY not set, and BPF hook to getsockopt is registered). As result of BPF execution, the local user can trigger bug in __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_getsockopt() function that can lead to heap overflow (because of non-hardened usercopy). The impact of attack could be deny of service or possibly privileges escalation.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
该漏洞涉及 `CONFIG_CGROUPS=y` 和 `CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF=y`，这表明它与 cgroup 和 BPF（Berkeley Packet Filter）功能相关。cgroup 是 Linux 内核中用于限制和隔离资源使用的重要机制，也是容器技术（如 Docker）的核心组成部分之一。因此，该漏洞与 cgroup 和容器隔离机制相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
漏洞描述中提到，攻击者可以通过触发 `__cgroup_bpf_run_filter_getsockopt()` 函数中的堆溢出问题，可能导致拒绝服务（DoS）或权限提升（privilege escalation）。如果此漏洞被利用于容器环境中，恶意容器可能利用该漏洞突破隔离，影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。尤其是当容器共享同一内核时，这种风险更加显著。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 该 CVE 与 cgroup 和容器隔离机制相关。
|
||||
- 该漏洞可能导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/20xxx/CVE-2021-20511.json
|
||||
IBM Security Verify Access Docker 10.0.0 could allow a remote attacker to traverse directories on the system. An attacker could send a specially-crafted URL request containing "dot dot" sequences (/../) to view arbitrary files on the system. IBM X-Force ID: 198300.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该CVE描述中提到的是IBM Security Verify Access Docker版本10.0.0中存在的目录遍历漏洞。虽然提到了Docker，但问题的核心是应用程序对URL输入的验证不足，导致目录遍历风险，而非Docker本身的namespace、cgroup或隔离机制的问题。因此，这个CVE与namespace、cgroup、container或容器隔离机制无直接关系。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
根据描述，攻击者可以通过构造特殊的URL请求来访问系统上的任意文件。这种行为可能允许攻击者读取宿主机文件系统上的敏感信息（如果Docker容器以不安全的方式挂载了宿主机文件系统）。然而，这并不是Docker容器隔离机制本身的漏洞，而是应用程序对输入验证的缺陷。因此，此漏洞可能会间接影响宿主机，但不会直接影响其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件1和条件2部分满足，因此返回分析结果，而不是N/A。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/21xxx/CVE-2021-21284.json
|
||||
In Docker before versions 9.03.15, 20.10.3 there is a vulnerability involving the --userns-remap option in which access to remapped root allows privilege escalation to real root. When using "--userns-remap", if the root user in the remapped namespace has access to the host filesystem they can modify files under "/var/lib/docker/<remapping>" that cause writing files with extended privileges. Versions 20.10.3 and 19.03.15 contain patches that prevent privilege escalation from remapped user.
|
||||
analysis: ### 分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE与namespace和容器隔离相关。具体来说，问题涉及`--userns-remap`选项，这是一个与用户命名空间（user namespace）相关的功能，用于增强容器的隔离性。然而，由于漏洞的存在，即使在用户命名空间中运行的容器用户被重新映射为非特权用户，仍然可能通过特定方式提升到真实的root权限。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器突破隔离，影响宿主机的安全性。如果攻击者能够在容器内利用此漏洞，他们可以修改宿主机上的文件（例如`/var/lib/docker/<remapping>`路径下的文件），从而导致特权提升到真实的root用户。这将使攻击者能够控制宿主机，并进一步影响其他容器的运行环境。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/21xxx/CVE-2021-21285.json
|
||||
In Docker before versions 9.03.15, 20.10.3 there is a vulnerability in which pulling an intentionally malformed Docker image manifest crashes the dockerd daemon. Versions 20.10.3 and 19.03.15 contain patches that prevent the daemon from crashing.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器相关。它涉及Docker软件中的一个漏洞，具体是在处理恶意构造的Docker镜像清单时导致Docker守护进程（dockerd）崩溃。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞可能会间接影响宿主机的稳定性。由于恶意镜像清单能够导致Docker守护进程崩溃，这会使整个Docker服务不可用，从而可能影响正在运行的所有容器。然而，此漏洞本身并不直接破坏容器之间的隔离性或允许攻击者访问宿主机资源。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件1满足，条件2部分满足（影响宿主机服务可用性但不破坏隔离性）。因此，返回分析结果而非"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/21xxx/CVE-2021-21979.json
|
||||
In Bitnami Containers, all Laravel container versions prior to: 6.20.0-debian-10-r107 for Laravel 6, 7.30.1-debian-10-r108 for Laravel 7 and 8.5.11-debian-10-r0 for Laravel 8, the file /tmp/app/.env is generated at the time that the docker image bitnami/laravel was built, and the value of APP_KEY is fixed under certain conditions. This value is crucial for the security of the application and must be randomly generated per Laravel installation. If your application's encryption key is in the hands of a malicious party, that party could craft cookie values using the encryption key and exploit vulnerabilities inherent to PHP object serialization / unserialization, such as calling arbitrary class methods within your application.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离机制无直接关系。问题的核心是 Bitnami Laravel 容器镜像中生成的 `/tmp/app/.env` 文件中的 `APP_KEY` 在某些条件下是固定的，而非动态随机生成。这属于应用程序级别的安全配置问题，而不是容器或隔离机制本身的漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 不会直接导致运行中的容器（例如 Docker）影响其他容器或宿主机。问题主要在于单个容器内的 Laravel 应用程序的安全性，由于 `APP_KEY` 固定可能导致恶意用户利用 PHP 序列化/反序列化漏洞进行攻击。这种攻击的影响范围通常局限于当前容器内的应用逻辑，而不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机，除非应用本身暴露了敏感接口或权限提升漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据分析要求，返回：**N/A**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/23xxx/CVE-2021-23732.json
|
||||
This affects all versions of package docker-cli-js. If the command parameter of the Docker.command method can at least be partially controlled by a user, they will be in a position to execute any arbitrary OS commands on the host system.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关。
|
||||
- 描述中提到 Docker.command 方法，这表明问题与 Docker 容器技术有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
- 描述中明确指出，如果用户能够控制 `Docker.command` 方法的参数，他们可以执行任意操作系统命令，从而直接影响宿主机的安全性。这种情况下，攻击者可能突破容器隔离，对宿主机或其他容器造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/33xxx/CVE-2021-33183.json
|
||||
Improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability container volume management component in Synology Docker before 18.09.0-0515 allows local users to read or write arbitrary files via unspecified vectors.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
该 CVE 描述中明确提到了 "container volume management component"，这表明问题与容器的卷管理组件有关。容器卷管理涉及文件系统挂载和路径处理，因此与容器技术（如 Docker）直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
根据描述，此漏洞允许本地用户通过未指定的向量读取或写入任意文件。这种路径遍历漏洞可能会导致攻击者突破容器的隔离机制，访问宿主机上的文件系统或其他容器的数据。因此，该漏洞可能会影响容器的隔离性，并对宿主机或其他容器造成潜在威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/34xxx/CVE-2021-34079.json
|
||||
OS Command injection vulnerability in Mintzo Docker-Tester through 1.2.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in the 'ports' entry of a crafted docker-compose.yml file.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞与容器相关。它涉及 Docker-Tester 工具，该工具用于处理 `docker-compose.yml` 文件，并通过其中的 `ports` 条目进行命令注入。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
有可能。由于这是一个命令注入漏洞，攻击者可以通过精心构造的 `docker-compose.yml` 文件中的 `ports` 条目执行任意命令。如果 Docker-Tester 以特权模式运行或具有对宿主机系统的访问权限，攻击者可能利用此漏洞影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/34xxx/CVE-2021-34824.json
|
||||
Istio (1.8.x, 1.9.0-1.9.5 and 1.10.0-1.10.1) contains a remotely exploitable vulnerability where credentials specified in the Gateway and DestinationRule credentialName field can be accessed from different namespaces.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
该CVE描述中提到“credentials specified in the Gateway and DestinationRule credentialName field can be accessed from different namespaces”，说明存在跨命名空间（namespace）访问凭证的安全问题。因此，该漏洞与命名空间（namespace）相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
该漏洞主要涉及Istio服务网格中的配置问题，导致不同命名空间之间的凭证可以被访问。虽然它与命名空间隔离有关，但并没有直接提及容器运行时的隔离机制（如cgroup或容器本身）。此外，描述中没有提到此漏洞会影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。因此，该漏洞不会直接导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
根据以上分析，条件1部分满足（与namespace相关），但条件2不满足（不会影响其他容器或宿主机）。因此，返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
- 与namespace相关。
|
||||
- 不会影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/37xxx/CVE-2021-37841.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop before 3.6.0 suffers from incorrect access control. If a low-privileged account is able to access the server running the Windows containers, it can lead to a full container compromise in both process isolation and Hyper-V isolation modes. This security issue leads an attacker with low privilege to read, write and possibly even execute code inside the containers.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到Docker Desktop在Windows容器中的问题，并涉及两种隔离模式（进程隔离和Hyper-V隔离）。这表明它与容器技术和隔离机制密切相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞允许低权限用户完全控制容器（读、写甚至执行代码），从而可能导致容器被攻破。虽然描述中没有明确提到对宿主机的影响，但一旦容器被完全控制，攻击者可能利用容器逃逸技术进一步危害宿主机或其他容器，因此存在潜在风险。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/38xxx/CVE-2021-38209.json
|
||||
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c in the Linux kernel before 5.12.2 allows observation of changes in any net namespace because these changes are leaked into all other net namespaces. This is related to the NF_SYSCTL_CT_MAX, NF_SYSCTL_CT_EXPECT_MAX, and NF_SYSCTL_CT_BUCKETS sysctls.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与 namespace 相关。具体来说，它涉及网络命名空间（net namespace）中的连接跟踪（connection tracking, conntrack）机制。问题的核心在于，某些 sysctl 参数（如 `NF_SYSCTL_CT_MAX`、`NF_SYSCTL_CT_EXPECT_MAX` 和 `NF_SYSCTL_CT_BUCKETS`）的变化会泄露到所有其他网络命名空间中，这破坏了不同命名空间之间的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会影响容器的隔离性。由于容器通常依赖于网络命名空间来实现网络隔离，而此漏洞会导致一个命名空间中的连接跟踪配置变化泄露到其他命名空间，因此攻击者可能通过这种方式观察或推测其他容器或宿主机的网络活动。这种信息泄露可能会被进一步利用，从而威胁系统的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/39xxx/CVE-2021-39159.json
|
||||
BinderHub is a kubernetes-based cloud service that allows users to share reproducible interactive computing environments from code repositories. In affected versions a remote code execution vulnerability has been identified in BinderHub, where providing BinderHub with maliciously crafted input could execute code in the BinderHub context, with the potential to egress credentials of the BinderHub deployment, including JupyterHub API tokens, kubernetes service accounts, and docker registry credentials. This may provide the ability to manipulate images and other user created pods in the deployment, with the potential to escalate to the host depending on the underlying kubernetes configuration. Users are advised to update to version 0.2.0-n653. If users are unable to update they may disable the git repo provider by specifying the `BinderHub.repo_providers` as a workaround.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器和隔离相关。BinderHub 是基于 Kubernetes 的服务，而 Kubernetes 使用容器（如 Docker）来运行用户的工作负载。此外，漏洞描述中提到可能通过恶意输入执行代码，并进一步影响 Kubernetes 配置下的主机，这表明问题涉及容器环境及其潜在的隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器影响宿主机。根据描述，攻击者可以通过 BinderHub 的漏洞获取敏感凭据（如 Kubernetes 服务账户、Docker 注册表凭据等），并利用这些凭据操控部署中的其他容器或甚至升级权限到宿主机，具体取决于 Kubernetes 的配置。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此需要返回分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/3xxx/CVE-2021-3493.json
|
||||
The overlayfs implementation in the linux kernel did not properly validate with respect to user namespaces the setting of file capabilities on files in an underlying file system. Due to the combination of unprivileged user namespaces along with a patch carried in the Ubuntu kernel to allow unprivileged overlay mounts, an attacker could use this to gain elevated privileges.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。具体来说，问题涉及 overlayfs 在 Linux 内核中的实现，以及用户命名空间 (user namespaces) 的验证问题。OverlayFS 是一种常用于容器技术（如 Docker）的文件系统，而用户命名空间是容器隔离机制的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器内的攻击者提升权限，从而影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。由于 Ubuntu 内核中携带的一个补丁允许非特权用户挂载 overlay 文件系统，结合用户命名空间的不当验证，攻击者可以在容器内利用此漏洞获得宿主机上的更高权限。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
该 CVE 与 namespace 和容器隔离机制相关，并且可能被利用来突破容器隔离，影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/3xxx/CVE-2021-3557.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in argocd. Any unprivileged user is able to deploy argocd in their namespace and with the created ServiceAccount argocd-argocd-server, the unprivileged user is able to read all resources of the cluster including all secrets which might enable privilege escalations. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞与namespace相关。描述中提到“unprivileged user is able to deploy argocd in their namespace”，说明攻击者可以在特定的namespace中部署argocd，并利用创建的ServiceAccount（`argocd-argocd-server`）访问集群中的资源。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
从描述来看，此漏洞并不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。它的主要威胁是数据保密性问题，即通过权限提升可以读取集群中的所有资源和秘密信息。然而，这种行为并未直接破坏容器隔离机制，而是通过Kubernetes API权限管理的问题导致了信息泄露。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
由于条件1部分满足，条件2不满足，因此需要返回分析结果而非"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
**分析结果：**
|
||||
- 该CVE与namespace相关，涉及Kubernetes权限管理和资源访问问题。
|
||||
- 不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机，但可能导致敏感信息泄露，从而间接威胁系统的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/3xxx/CVE-2021-3602.json
|
||||
An information disclosure flaw was found in Buildah, when building containers using chroot isolation. Running processes in container builds (e.g. Dockerfile RUN commands) can access environment variables from parent and grandparent processes. When run in a container in a CI/CD environment, environment variables may include sensitive information that was shared with the container in order to be used only by Buildah itself (e.g. container registry credentials).
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到 Buildah 在使用 chroot 隔离方式构建容器时存在问题。chroot 是一种隔离技术，虽然它不像 namespace 和 cgroup 那样全面，但仍然属于容器隔离的一部分。因此，该问题与容器和隔离机制相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞导致的是信息泄露问题，而不是直接破坏隔离性或影响其他容器或宿主机的运行。具体来说，容器内的进程可以访问到父进程或祖父进程的环境变量，这些变量可能包含敏感信息（如容器镜像仓库凭据）。这种信息泄露可能会间接影响系统的安全性，但不会直接导致容器逃逸或其他容器被影响。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：
|
||||
满足条件 1，不满足条件 2。因此，返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
- 与容器和隔离机制相关。
|
||||
- 不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机的运行，但可能导致敏感信息泄露。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/3xxx/CVE-2021-3948.json
|
||||
An incorrect default permissions vulnerability was found in the mig-controller. Due to an incorrect cluster namespaces handling an attacker may be able to migrate a malicious workload to the target cluster, impacting confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the services located on that cluster.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 提到的是 `mig-controller` 中由于默认权限配置错误，导致对集群命名空间处理不当。这涉及到 Kubernetes 集群中的命名空间（namespace）管理问题，因此与 namespace 相关。虽然没有直接提到 cgroup 或容器隔离机制，但迁移恶意工作负载的行为可能会影响容器化的服务。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
攻击者可以通过此漏洞将恶意工作负载迁移到目标集群，从而影响目标集群上的服务的机密性、完整性和可用性。如果目标集群上运行了多个容器化服务，这种影响可能会波及其他容器或整个集群环境，甚至可能间接影响宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
根据以上分析，条件 1 和 2 均满足，因此返回以下信息：
|
||||
- 与 namespace 相关，可能间接影响容器和宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/41xxx/CVE-2021-41089.json
|
||||
Moby is an open-source project created by Docker to enable software containerization. A bug was found in Moby (Docker Engine) where attempting to copy files using `docker cp` into a specially-crafted container can result in Unix file permission changes for existing files in the host’s filesystem, widening access to others. This bug does not directly allow files to be read, modified, or executed without an additional cooperating process. This bug has been fixed in Moby (Docker Engine) 20.10.9. Users should update to this version as soon as possible. Running containers do not need to be restarted.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器技术直接相关。它涉及 Moby（Docker Engine）中的 `docker cp` 功能，该功能允许用户在主机和容器之间复制文件。此问题可能导致主机文件系统的权限被意外更改，从而影响隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会影响宿主机的安全性。通过利用此漏洞，攻击者可以改变宿主机文件系统的权限，从而放宽对某些敏感文件的访问控制。虽然这本身不会直接导致文件被读取、修改或执行，但权限的变化可能会为其他攻击提供便利，间接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/41xxx/CVE-2021-41091.json
|
||||
Moby is an open-source project created by Docker to enable software containerization. A bug was found in Moby (Docker Engine) where the data directory (typically `/var/lib/docker`) contained subdirectories with insufficiently restricted permissions, allowing otherwise unprivileged Linux users to traverse directory contents and execute programs. When containers included executable programs with extended permission bits (such as `setuid`), unprivileged Linux users could discover and execute those programs. When the UID of an unprivileged Linux user on the host collided with the file owner or group inside a container, the unprivileged Linux user on the host could discover, read, and modify those files. This bug has been fixed in Moby (Docker Engine) 20.10.9. Users should update to this version as soon as possible. Running containers should be stopped and restarted for the permissions to be fixed. For users unable to upgrade limit access to the host to trusted users. Limit access to host volumes to trusted containers.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器相关。它描述了 Moby（Docker Engine）中 `/var/lib/docker` 数据目录的子目录权限设置不当的问题，这可能导致容器内的文件被宿主机上的非特权用户访问和修改。此外，当容器中包含具有扩展权限位（如 `setuid`）的可执行程序时，这些程序可能被宿主机上的非特权用户发现并执行。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会导致容器运行时影响宿主机和其他容器。由于权限设置不当，宿主机上的非特权用户可以访问容器内的文件和程序，甚至执行它们。如果 UID 冲突，用户还可以读取、修改容器内的文件，从而破坏容器的隔离性，并可能进一步影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/41xxx/CVE-2021-41805.json
|
||||
HashiCorp Consul Enterprise before 1.8.17, 1.9.x before 1.9.11, and 1.10.x before 1.10.4 has Incorrect Access Control. An ACL token (with the default operator:write permissions) in one namespace can be used for unintended privilege escalation in a different namespace.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与 namespace 相关。HashiCorp Consul Enterprise 的问题涉及到 ACL token 在不同 namespace 中的权限控制错误，这表明它利用了 namespace 的概念来实现隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。此漏洞主要涉及 HashiCorp Consul 的多 namespace 隔离机制中的权限控制问题，而不是容器运行时的安全性问题。虽然它可能导致跨 namespace 的权限提升，但并未直接提到对容器或宿主机的威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 满足条件 1，但不满足条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/42xxx/CVE-2021-42762.json
|
||||
BubblewrapLauncher.cpp in WebKitGTK and WPE WebKit before 2.34.1 allows a limited sandbox bypass that allows a sandboxed process to trick host processes into thinking the sandboxed process is not confined by the sandbox, by abusing VFS syscalls that manipulate its filesystem namespace. The impact is limited to host services that create UNIX sockets that WebKit mounts inside its sandbox, and the sandboxed process remains otherwise confined. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2021-41133.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个CVE与namespace和隔离相关。描述中提到“sandbox bypass”以及“filesystem namespace”，表明问题涉及文件系统命名空间的隔离机制。具体来说，漏洞允许沙盒内的进程通过滥用VFS系统调用来操控其文件系统命名空间，从而欺骗宿主机上的进程，使其认为该沙盒内进程未被隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
根据描述，影响是有限的。漏洞仅影响那些创建UNIX套接字并将其挂载到WebKit沙盒内的宿主机服务。沙盒内的进程仍然保持其他方面的隔离。因此，虽然此漏洞可能导致一定程度的隔离失效，但并不会直接导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机（除非宿主机上有特定的服务配置，且这些服务依赖于受影响的沙盒机制）。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1，部分满足条件2（影响有限）。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/43xxx/CVE-2021-43784.json
|
||||
runc is a CLI tool for spawning and running containers on Linux according to the OCI specification. In runc, netlink is used internally as a serialization system for specifying the relevant container configuration to the `C` portion of the code (responsible for the based namespace setup of containers). In all versions of runc prior to 1.0.3, the encoder did not handle the possibility of an integer overflow in the 16-bit length field for the byte array attribute type, meaning that a large enough malicious byte array attribute could result in the length overflowing and the attribute contents being parsed as netlink messages for container configuration. This vulnerability requires the attacker to have some control over the configuration of the container and would allow the attacker to bypass the namespace restrictions of the container by simply adding their own netlink payload which disables all namespaces. The main users impacted are those who allow untrusted images with untrusted configurations to run on their machines (such as with shared cloud infrastructure). runc version 1.0.3 contains a fix for this bug. As a workaround, one may try disallowing untrusted namespace paths from your container. It should be noted that untrusted namespace paths would allow the attacker to disable namespace protections entirely even in the absence of this bug.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 与 namespace 和容器隔离直接相关。漏洞描述中明确提到，攻击者可以通过构造恶意的字节数组属性，导致 netlink 消息被错误解析，从而绕过容器的 namespace 限制。Namespace 是 Linux 容器（如 Docker）实现隔离的核心机制之一，因此该漏洞直接影响了容器的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会导致容器突破隔离，影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。具体来说，攻击者可以通过此漏洞禁用所有 namespaces，从而使容器能够访问宿主机的资源，甚至可能进一步危害宿主机上的其他容器或系统本身。这违反了容器设计中的隔离原则。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和条件 2，无需返回 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/44xxx/CVE-2021-44731.json
|
||||
A race condition existed in the snapd 2.54.2 snap-confine binary when preparing a private mount namespace for a snap. This could allow a local attacker to gain root privileges by bind-mounting their own contents inside the snap's private mount namespace and causing snap-confine to execute arbitrary code and hence gain privilege escalation. Fixed in snapd versions 2.54.3+18.04, 2.54.3+20.04 and 2.54.3+21.10.1
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关，因为它提到了 "private mount namespace" 的准备过程中存在竞争条件。
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器运行时受到影响，因为攻击者可以通过 bind-mount 的方式注入自己的内容到 snap 的私有挂载命名空间中，并导致 snap-confine 执行任意代码。这可能会进一步影响宿主机或其他容器的隔离性，尤其是在共享宿主机的情况下。
|
||||
3. 因此，这个 CVE 满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/46xxx/CVE-2021-46283.json
|
||||
nf_tables_newset in net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c in the Linux kernel before 5.12.13 allows local users to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and general protection fault) because of the missing initialization for nft_set_elem_expr_alloc. A local user can set a netfilter table expression in their own namespace.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
该 CVE 描述中提到 `nft_set_elem_expr_alloc` 的初始化缺失问题，导致本地用户可以在其自己的命名空间（namespace）中设置 netfilter 表达式。由于涉及到命名空间（namespace），这与 Linux 容器的隔离机制有一定关联，因为命名空间是容器隔离的核心技术之一。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
虽然该漏洞允许本地用户在其自己的命名空间中触发问题，但描述中并未明确指出此漏洞能够突破命名空间的限制，从而影响其他容器或宿主机。因此，从现有信息来看，该漏洞似乎仅限于在用户自己的命名空间内造成拒绝服务（DoS），而不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
条件 1 满足（与命名空间相关），条件 2 不满足（不会影响其他容器或宿主机）。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/46xxx/CVE-2021-46912.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
net: Make tcp_allowed_congestion_control readonly in non-init netns
|
||||
|
||||
Currently, tcp_allowed_congestion_control is global and writable;
|
||||
writing to it in any net namespace will leak into all other net
|
||||
namespaces.
|
||||
|
||||
tcp_available_congestion_control and tcp_allowed_congestion_control are
|
||||
the only sysctls in ipv4_net_table (the per-netns sysctl table) with a
|
||||
NULL data pointer; their handlers (proc_tcp_available_congestion_control
|
||||
and proc_allowed_congestion_control) have no other way of referencing a
|
||||
struct net. Thus, they operate globally.
|
||||
|
||||
Because ipv4_net_table does not use designated initializers, there is no
|
||||
easy way to fix up this one "bad" table entry. However, the data pointer
|
||||
updating logic shouldn't be applied to NULL pointers anyway, so we
|
||||
instead force these entries to be read-only.
|
||||
|
||||
These sysctls used to exist in ipv4_table (init-net only), but they were
|
||||
moved to the per-net ipv4_net_table, presumably without realizing that
|
||||
tcp_allowed_congestion_control was writable and thus introduced a leak.
|
||||
|
||||
Because the intent of that commit was only to know (i.e. read) "which
|
||||
congestion algorithms are available or allowed", this read-only solution
|
||||
should be sufficient.
|
||||
|
||||
The logic added in recent commit
|
||||
31c4d2f160eb: ("net: Ensure net namespace isolation of sysctls")
|
||||
does not and cannot check for NULL data pointers, because
|
||||
other table entries (e.g. /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_log/) have
|
||||
.data=NULL but use other methods (.extra2) to access the struct net.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 描述了 `tcp_allowed_congestion_control` 在非初始化网络命名空间（non-init netns）中是可写的，这会导致一个网络命名空间的更改泄露到其他网络命名空间。因此，此漏洞直接涉及 Linux 的网络命名空间（network namespace），这是容器隔离机制的一部分。容器技术（如 Docker）通常依赖于命名空间来实现资源隔离，因此该问题与容器隔离密切相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
由于 `tcp_allowed_congestion_control` 是全局可写的，更改在一个容器的网络命名空间中的值可能会泄露到其他容器或宿主机的网络命名空间。这种行为破坏了容器之间的隔离性，可能导致意外的行为或安全风险。因此，此漏洞会影响容器的隔离性，并可能间接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此需要返回分析结果而不是 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
**最终分析结果**：
|
||||
- 该 CVE 与网络命名空间相关，直接影响容器的隔离性。
|
||||
- 容器运行时的配置更改可能泄露到其他容器或宿主机，破坏隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/46xxx/CVE-2021-46936.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
net: fix use-after-free in tw_timer_handler
|
||||
|
||||
A real world panic issue was found as follow in Linux 5.4.
|
||||
|
||||
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffde49a863de28
|
||||
PGD 7e6fe62067 P4D 7e6fe62067 PUD 7e6fe63067 PMD f51e064067 PTE 0
|
||||
RIP: 0010:tw_timer_handler+0x20/0x40
|
||||
Call Trace:
|
||||
<IRQ>
|
||||
call_timer_fn+0x2b/0x120
|
||||
run_timer_softirq+0x1ef/0x450
|
||||
__do_softirq+0x10d/0x2b8
|
||||
irq_exit+0xc7/0xd0
|
||||
smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x68/0x120
|
||||
apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
|
||||
|
||||
This issue was also reported since 2017 in the thread [1],
|
||||
unfortunately, the issue was still can be reproduced after fixing
|
||||
DCCP.
|
||||
|
||||
The ipv4_mib_exit_net is called before tcp_sk_exit_batch when a net
|
||||
namespace is destroyed since tcp_sk_ops is registered befrore
|
||||
ipv4_mib_ops, which means tcp_sk_ops is in the front of ipv4_mib_ops
|
||||
in the list of pernet_list. There will be a use-after-free on
|
||||
net->mib.net_statistics in tw_timer_handler after ipv4_mib_exit_net
|
||||
if there are some inflight time-wait timers.
|
||||
|
||||
This bug is not introduced by commit f2bf415cfed7 ("mib: add net to
|
||||
NET_ADD_STATS_BH") since the net_statistics is a global variable
|
||||
instead of dynamic allocation and freeing. Actually, commit
|
||||
61a7e26028b9 ("mib: put net statistics on struct net") introduces
|
||||
the bug since it put net statistics on struct net and free it when
|
||||
net namespace is destroyed.
|
||||
|
||||
Moving init_ipv4_mibs() to the front of tcp_init() to fix this bug
|
||||
and replace pr_crit() with panic() since continuing is meaningless
|
||||
when init_ipv4_mibs() fails.
|
||||
|
||||
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/syzkaller/c/p1tn-_Kc6l4/m/smuL_FMAAgAJ?pli=1
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞涉及网络命名空间（net namespace）。问题出现在销毁网络命名空间时，`ipv4_mib_exit_net` 被调用在 `tcp_sk_exit_batch` 之前，导致了 `tw_timer_handler` 中的 use-after-free 问题。网络命名空间是 Linux 容器（如 Docker）实现网络隔离的核心机制之一，因此该漏洞与命名空间和隔离相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器在运行时影响宿主机或其他容器。由于网络命名空间是容器隔离的重要组成部分，如果一个容器的网络命名空间被销毁时触发了该漏洞，可能会导致宿主机内核崩溃（panic），从而影响整个系统以及运行在该宿主机上的所有容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
根据以上分析，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/47xxx/CVE-2021-47010.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
net: Only allow init netns to set default tcp cong to a restricted algo
|
||||
|
||||
tcp_set_default_congestion_control() is netns-safe in that it writes
|
||||
to &net->ipv4.tcp_congestion_control, but it also sets
|
||||
ca->flags |= TCP_CONG_NON_RESTRICTED which is not namespaced.
|
||||
This has the unintended side-effect of changing the global
|
||||
net.ipv4.tcp_allowed_congestion_control sysctl, despite the fact that it
|
||||
is read-only: 97684f0970f6 ("net: Make tcp_allowed_congestion_control
|
||||
readonly in non-init netns")
|
||||
|
||||
Resolve this netns "leak" by only allowing the init netns to set the
|
||||
default algorithm to one that is restricted. This restriction could be
|
||||
removed if tcp_allowed_congestion_control were namespace-ified in the
|
||||
future.
|
||||
|
||||
This bug was uncovered with
|
||||
https://github.com/JonathonReinhart/linux-netns-sysctl-verify
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关。具体来说，它涉及网络命名空间（netns）的安全问题。`tcp_set_default_congestion_control()` 函数在设置默认 TCP 拥塞控制算法时，虽然针对特定命名空间进行了操作，但意外地修改了全局的 `net.ipv4.tcp_allowed_congestion_control` 系统参数。这表明该漏洞与 Linux 命名空间的隔离性有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能会导致容器影响宿主机或其他容器。由于问题在于网络命名空间的隔离性被破坏，非初始化命名空间（non-init netns）可以间接修改全局的 TCP 拥塞控制设置，这可能会影响宿主机上的网络行为以及其他使用相同内核的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 都满足，因此需要返回分析结果，而不是 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/47xxx/CVE-2021-47011.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
mm: memcontrol: slab: fix obtain a reference to a freeing memcg
|
||||
|
||||
Patch series "Use obj_cgroup APIs to charge kmem pages", v5.
|
||||
|
||||
Since Roman's series "The new cgroup slab memory controller" applied.
|
||||
All slab objects are charged with the new APIs of obj_cgroup. The new
|
||||
APIs introduce a struct obj_cgroup to charge slab objects. It prevents
|
||||
long-living objects from pinning the original memory cgroup in the
|
||||
memory. But there are still some corner objects (e.g. allocations
|
||||
larger than order-1 page on SLUB) which are not charged with the new
|
||||
APIs. Those objects (include the pages which are allocated from buddy
|
||||
allocator directly) are charged as kmem pages which still hold a
|
||||
reference to the memory cgroup.
|
||||
|
||||
E.g. We know that the kernel stack is charged as kmem pages because the
|
||||
size of the kernel stack can be greater than 2 pages (e.g. 16KB on
|
||||
x86_64 or arm64). If we create a thread (suppose the thread stack is
|
||||
charged to memory cgroup A) and then move it from memory cgroup A to
|
||||
memory cgroup B. Because the kernel stack of the thread hold a
|
||||
reference to the memory cgroup A. The thread can pin the memory cgroup
|
||||
A in the memory even if we remove the cgroup A. If we want to see this
|
||||
scenario by using the following script. We can see that the system has
|
||||
added 500 dying cgroups (This is not a real world issue, just a script
|
||||
to show that the large kmallocs are charged as kmem pages which can pin
|
||||
the memory cgroup in the memory).
|
||||
|
||||
#!/bin/bash
|
||||
|
||||
cat /proc/cgroups | grep memory
|
||||
|
||||
cd /sys/fs/cgroup/memory
|
||||
echo 1 > memory.move_charge_at_immigrate
|
||||
|
||||
for i in range{1..500}
|
||||
do
|
||||
mkdir kmem_test
|
||||
echo $$ > kmem_test/cgroup.procs
|
||||
sleep 3600 &
|
||||
echo $$ > cgroup.procs
|
||||
echo `cat kmem_test/cgroup.procs` > cgroup.procs
|
||||
rmdir kmem_test
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
cat /proc/cgroups | grep memory
|
||||
|
||||
This patchset aims to make those kmem pages to drop the reference to
|
||||
memory cgroup by using the APIs of obj_cgroup. Finally, we can see that
|
||||
the number of the dying cgroups will not increase if we run the above test
|
||||
script.
|
||||
|
||||
This patch (of 7):
|
||||
|
||||
The rcu_read_lock/unlock only can guarantee that the memcg will not be
|
||||
freed, but it cannot guarantee the success of css_get (which is in the
|
||||
refill_stock when cached memcg changed) to memcg.
|
||||
|
||||
rcu_read_lock()
|
||||
memcg = obj_cgroup_memcg(old)
|
||||
__memcg_kmem_uncharge(memcg)
|
||||
refill_stock(memcg)
|
||||
if (stock->cached != memcg)
|
||||
// css_get can change the ref counter from 0 back to 1.
|
||||
css_get(&memcg->css)
|
||||
rcu_read_unlock()
|
||||
|
||||
This fix is very like the commit:
|
||||
|
||||
eefbfa7fd678 ("mm: memcg/slab: fix use after free in obj_cgroup_charge")
|
||||
|
||||
Fix this by holding a reference to the memcg which is passed to the
|
||||
__memcg_kmem_uncharge() before calling __memcg_kmem_uncharge().
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 cgroup 相关。它涉及到 Linux 内核中的内存控制组 (memory cgroup) 和 slab 分配器的实现。具体来说，问题出现在对内存控制组的引用计数管理上，可能导致长期存在的对象（如内核栈）在内存控制组被移除后仍然持有对该控制组的引用，从而阻止其被正确释放。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
可能会。由于该漏洞涉及内存控制组的管理，而内存控制组是容器隔离机制的重要组成部分之一（用于限制和隔离容器的资源使用），因此如果一个容器的内存使用行为触发了此漏洞，可能会导致内存控制组的不正确释放或引用计数问题。这可能间接影响到其他容器或宿主机的资源管理，尤其是在多租户环境下，可能会导致资源泄漏或隔离性受损。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 都满足，因此返回分析结果而不是 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/47xxx/CVE-2021-47379.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
blk-cgroup: fix UAF by grabbing blkcg lock before destroying blkg pd
|
||||
|
||||
KASAN reports a use-after-free report when doing fuzz test:
|
||||
|
||||
[693354.104835] ==================================================================
|
||||
[693354.105094] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in bfq_io_set_weight_legacy+0xd3/0x160
|
||||
[693354.105336] Read of size 4 at addr ffff888be0a35664 by task sh/1453338
|
||||
|
||||
[693354.105607] CPU: 41 PID: 1453338 Comm: sh Kdump: loaded Not tainted 4.18.0-147
|
||||
[693354.105610] Hardware name: Huawei 2288H V5/BC11SPSCB0, BIOS 0.81 07/02/2018
|
||||
[693354.105612] Call Trace:
|
||||
[693354.105621] dump_stack+0xf1/0x19b
|
||||
[693354.105626] ? show_regs_print_info+0x5/0x5
|
||||
[693354.105634] ? printk+0x9c/0xc3
|
||||
[693354.105638] ? cpumask_weight+0x1f/0x1f
|
||||
[693354.105648] print_address_description+0x70/0x360
|
||||
[693354.105654] kasan_report+0x1b2/0x330
|
||||
[693354.105659] ? bfq_io_set_weight_legacy+0xd3/0x160
|
||||
[693354.105665] ? bfq_io_set_weight_legacy+0xd3/0x160
|
||||
[693354.105670] bfq_io_set_weight_legacy+0xd3/0x160
|
||||
[693354.105675] ? bfq_cpd_init+0x20/0x20
|
||||
[693354.105683] cgroup_file_write+0x3aa/0x510
|
||||
[693354.105693] ? ___slab_alloc+0x507/0x540
|
||||
[693354.105698] ? cgroup_file_poll+0x60/0x60
|
||||
[693354.105702] ? 0xffffffff89600000
|
||||
[693354.105708] ? usercopy_abort+0x90/0x90
|
||||
[693354.105716] ? mutex_lock+0xef/0x180
|
||||
[693354.105726] kernfs_fop_write+0x1ab/0x280
|
||||
[693354.105732] ? cgroup_file_poll+0x60/0x60
|
||||
[693354.105738] vfs_write+0xe7/0x230
|
||||
[693354.105744] ksys_write+0xb0/0x140
|
||||
[693354.105749] ? __ia32_sys_read+0x50/0x50
|
||||
[693354.105760] do_syscall_64+0x112/0x370
|
||||
[693354.105766] ? syscall_return_slowpath+0x260/0x260
|
||||
[693354.105772] ? do_page_fault+0x9b/0x270
|
||||
[693354.105779] ? prepare_exit_to_usermode+0xf9/0x1a0
|
||||
[693354.105784] ? enter_from_user_mode+0x30/0x30
|
||||
[693354.105793] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x65/0xca
|
||||
|
||||
[693354.105875] Allocated by task 1453337:
|
||||
[693354.106001] kasan_kmalloc+0xa0/0xd0
|
||||
[693354.106006] kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace+0x108/0x220
|
||||
[693354.106010] bfq_pd_alloc+0x96/0x120
|
||||
[693354.106015] blkcg_activate_policy+0x1b7/0x2b0
|
||||
[693354.106020] bfq_create_group_hierarchy+0x1e/0x80
|
||||
[693354.106026] bfq_init_queue+0x678/0x8c0
|
||||
[693354.106031] blk_mq_init_sched+0x1f8/0x460
|
||||
[693354.106037] elevator_switch_mq+0xe1/0x240
|
||||
[693354.106041] elevator_switch+0x25/0x40
|
||||
[693354.106045] elv_iosched_store+0x1a1/0x230
|
||||
[693354.106049] queue_attr_store+0x78/0xb0
|
||||
[693354.106053] kernfs_fop_write+0x1ab/0x280
|
||||
[693354.106056] vfs_write+0xe7/0x230
|
||||
[693354.106060] ksys_write+0xb0/0x140
|
||||
[693354.106064] do_syscall_64+0x112/0x370
|
||||
[693354.106069] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x65/0xca
|
||||
|
||||
[693354.106114] Freed by task 1453336:
|
||||
[693354.106225] __kasan_slab_free+0x130/0x180
|
||||
[693354.106229] kfree+0x90/0x1b0
|
||||
[693354.106233] blkcg_deactivate_policy+0x12c/0x220
|
||||
[693354.106238] bfq_exit_queue+0xf5/0x110
|
||||
[693354.106241] blk_mq_exit_sched+0x104/0x130
|
||||
[693354.106245] __elevator_exit+0x45/0x60
|
||||
[693354.106249] elevator_switch_mq+0xd6/0x240
|
||||
[693354.106253] elevator_switch+0x25/0x40
|
||||
[693354.106257] elv_iosched_store+0x1a1/0x230
|
||||
[693354.106261] queue_attr_store+0x78/0xb0
|
||||
[693354.106264] kernfs_fop_write+0x1ab/0x280
|
||||
[693354.106268] vfs_write+0xe7/0x230
|
||||
[693354.106271] ksys_write+0xb0/0x140
|
||||
[693354.106275] do_syscall_64+0x112/0x370
|
||||
[693354.106280] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x65/0xca
|
||||
|
||||
[693354.106329] The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff888be0a35580
|
||||
which belongs to the cache kmalloc-1k of size 1024
|
||||
[693354.106736] The buggy address is located 228 bytes inside of
|
||||
1024-byte region [ffff888be0a35580, ffff888be0a35980)
|
||||
[693354.107114] The buggy address belongs to the page:
|
||||
[693354.107273] page:ffffea002f828c00 count:1 mapcount:0 mapping:ffff888107c17080 index:0x0 compound_mapcount: 0
|
||||
[693354.107606] flags: 0x17ffffc0008100(slab|head)
|
||||
[693354.107760] raw: 0017ffffc0008100 ffffea002fcbc808 ffffea0030bd3a08 ffff888107c17080
|
||||
[693354.108020] r
|
||||
---truncated---
|
||||
analysis: ### Analysis:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Is this CVE information related to namespace, cgroup, container, or isolation?**
|
||||
- Yes, this CVE is related to `cgroup` (control groups). Specifically, the issue involves a Use-After-Free (UAF) vulnerability in the block I/O control group (`blk-cgroup`) subsystem of the Linux kernel. Control groups are a fundamental component of containerization technologies like Docker, as they are used to limit and isolate resource usage (CPU, memory, block I/O, etc.) for groups of processes.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Does this CVE affect other containers or the host when running containers like Docker?**
|
||||
- Potentially yes. The `blk-cgroup` subsystem is responsible for managing and enforcing block I/O resource limits for processes within a cgroup. If an attacker can exploit this UAF vulnerability, it could lead to arbitrary code execution or a denial of service (DoS) condition. This could allow a malicious container to escape its resource restrictions, potentially affecting other containers or even the host system if the vulnerability is successfully exploited.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Conclusion:**
|
||||
- Since both conditions 1 and 2 are satisfied, this CVE is relevant to container isolation and could impact the security of containerized environments.
|
||||
|
||||
**Final Answer:**
|
||||
- Related to namespace/cgroup/container/isolation: **Yes**.
|
||||
- Can affect other containers or the host: **Potentially yes**.
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/47xxx/CVE-2021-47579.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
ovl: fix warning in ovl_create_real()
|
||||
|
||||
Syzbot triggered the following warning in ovl_workdir_create() ->
|
||||
ovl_create_real():
|
||||
|
||||
if (!err && WARN_ON(!newdentry->d_inode)) {
|
||||
|
||||
The reason is that the cgroup2 filesystem returns from mkdir without
|
||||
instantiating the new dentry.
|
||||
|
||||
Weird filesystems such as this will be rejected by overlayfs at a later
|
||||
stage during setup, but to prevent such a warning, call ovl_mkdir_real()
|
||||
directly from ovl_workdir_create() and reject this case early.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
该 CVE 涉及到 `cgroup2` 文件系统和 `overlayfs`，而 `cgroup2` 是 Linux 控制组（cgroup）的第二代实现，用于资源限制、优先级、会计等。此外，`overlayfs` 是一种常用于容器技术（如 Docker）的文件系统，用于提供分层文件系统支持。因此，这个 CVE 与 cgroup 和容器技术相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
该漏洞涉及 `ovl_create_real()` 函数中的警告处理问题，当 `cgroup2` 文件系统返回未实例化的新 dentry 时，可能会触发警告。虽然此问题已被修复以避免警告，但它可能暴露了 `overlayfs` 在处理特殊文件系统时的潜在不稳定性。如果 `overlayfs` 的行为受到影响，理论上可能导致容器的文件系统操作异常，进而间接影响其他容器或宿主机的稳定性。然而，从描述来看，此漏洞并未直接导致安全边界突破（如逃逸到宿主机），而是更偏向于功能性或稳定性问题。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
根据上述分析，该 CVE 与 cgroup 和容器技术相关，并可能对容器的稳定性产生一定影响，但没有明确证据表明它会导致容器逃逸或直接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。因此，满足条件 1 和部分条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/47xxx/CVE-2021-47584.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
iocost: Fix divide-by-zero on donation from low hweight cgroup
|
||||
|
||||
The donation calculation logic assumes that the donor has non-zero
|
||||
after-donation hweight, so the lowest active hweight a donating cgroup can
|
||||
have is 2 so that it can donate 1 while keeping the other 1 for itself.
|
||||
Earlier, we only donated from cgroups with sizable surpluses so this
|
||||
condition was always true. However, with the precise donation algorithm
|
||||
implemented, f1de2439ec43 ("blk-iocost: revamp donation amount
|
||||
determination") made the donation amount calculation exact enabling even low
|
||||
hweight cgroups to donate.
|
||||
|
||||
This means that in rare occasions, a cgroup with active hweight of 1 can
|
||||
enter donation calculation triggering the following warning and then a
|
||||
divide-by-zero oops.
|
||||
|
||||
WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 0 at block/blk-iocost.c:1928 transfer_surpluses.cold+0x0/0x53 [884/94867]
|
||||
...
|
||||
RIP: 0010:transfer_surpluses.cold+0x0/0x53
|
||||
Code: 92 ff 48 c7 c7 28 d1 ab b5 65 48 8b 34 25 00 ae 01 00 48 81 c6 90 06 00 00 e8 8b 3f fe ff 48 c7 c0 ea ff ff ff e9 95 ff 92 ff <0f> 0b 48 c7 c7 30 da ab b5 e8 71 3f fe ff 4c 89 e8 4d 85 ed 74 0
|
||||
4
|
||||
...
|
||||
Call Trace:
|
||||
<IRQ>
|
||||
ioc_timer_fn+0x1043/0x1390
|
||||
call_timer_fn+0xa1/0x2c0
|
||||
__run_timers.part.0+0x1ec/0x2e0
|
||||
run_timer_softirq+0x35/0x70
|
||||
...
|
||||
iocg: invalid donation weights in /a/b: active=1 donating=1 after=0
|
||||
|
||||
Fix it by excluding cgroups w/ active hweight < 2 from donating. Excluding
|
||||
these extreme low hweight donations shouldn't affect work conservation in
|
||||
any meaningful way.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 cgroup 相关。具体来说，问题出现在 Linux 内核的 iocost 子系统中，涉及 cgroup 的捐赠逻辑（donation logic）。cgroup 是 Linux 中用于实现资源限制和隔离的重要机制，因此该问题与 cgroup 和隔离密切相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
从描述来看，这个问题主要是一个除以零错误（divide-by-zero），它可能导致内核崩溃（oops）。如果此漏洞被触发，可能会影响整个系统的稳定性，包括宿主机和其他运行在宿主机上的容器。因此，该漏洞可能会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
根据以上分析，条件 1 和 2 均满足，因此返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 与 cgroup 和隔离相关。
|
||||
- 可能会导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/4xxx/CVE-2021-4154.json
|
||||
A use-after-free flaw was found in cgroup1_parse_param in kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c in the Linux kernel's cgroup v1 parser. A local attacker with a user privilege could cause a privilege escalation by exploiting the fsconfig syscall parameter leading to a container breakout and a denial of service on the system.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到 `cgroup1_parse_param` 函数，这是 Linux 内核中 cgroup v1 的一部分。Cgroup（Control Group）是用于限制、控制和隔离进程组资源使用的重要机制，广泛应用于容器技术（如 Docker）中以实现资源隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器突破（container breakout）。具体来说，攻击者可以通过利用 `fsconfig` 系统调用参数中的 use-after-free 漏洞，提升权限并逃逸出容器环境，从而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。此外，漏洞还可能引发拒绝服务（Denial of Service, DoS），进一步威胁系统稳定性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：该 CVE 信息满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2021/4xxx/CVE-2021-4197.json
|
||||
An unprivileged write to the file handler flaw in the Linux kernel's control groups and namespaces subsystem was found in the way users have access to some less privileged process that are controlled by cgroups and have higher privileged parent process. It is actually both for cgroup2 and cgroup1 versions of control groups. A local user could use this flaw to crash the system or escalate their privileges on the system.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 明确提到 Linux 内核的 control groups (cgroups) 和 namespaces 子系统存在漏洞。cgroups 是容器技术（如 Docker）中用于资源限制和隔离的重要组成部分，因此该漏洞与 cgroups 和隔离机制直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会影响容器的安全性。由于 cgroups 是容器资源隔离的核心机制之一，如果攻击者利用此漏洞，可能会突破容器的隔离边界，影响其他容器或宿主机。具体来说，漏洞允许本地用户通过未授权的写操作导致系统崩溃或权限提升，这可能被恶意容器利用来影响宿主机或其他容器的稳定性或安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
975
general_result/22.log
Normal file
975
general_result/22.log
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,975 @@
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/0xxx/CVE-2022-0070.json
|
||||
Incomplete fix for CVE-2021-3100. The Apache Log4j hotpatch package starting with log4j-cve-2021-44228-hotpatch-1.1-16 will now explicitly mimic the Linux capabilities and cgroups of the target Java process that the hotpatch is applied to.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
该 CVE 描述提到 Log4j 的 hotpatch 包会显式模仿目标 Java 进程的 Linux capabilities 和 cgroups。因此，它确实与 cgroups 相关，但没有直接提及 namespace、容器或隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
由于该漏洞涉及模仿目标 Java 进程的 cgroups，如果目标进程运行在容器中，而 hotpatch 的行为不当（例如权限提升或资源分配错误），可能会间接影响容器的隔离性。然而，根据描述，hotpatch 的设计目的是模仿目标进程的配置，理论上不会主动破坏容器隔离或影响宿主机。因此，从描述来看，直接影响其他容器或宿主机的风险较低。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
条件 1 满足（与 cgroups 相关），条件 2 不完全满足（无明确证据表明会影响其他容器或宿主机）。因此，返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 与 cgroups 相关，可能间接影响容器隔离性，但无明确证据表明会导致容器逃逸或影响宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/0xxx/CVE-2022-0185.json
|
||||
A heap-based buffer overflow flaw was found in the way the legacy_parse_param function in the Filesystem Context functionality of the Linux kernel verified the supplied parameters length. An unprivileged (in case of unprivileged user namespaces enabled, otherwise needs namespaced CAP_SYS_ADMIN privilege) local user able to open a filesystem that does not support the Filesystem Context API (and thus fallbacks to legacy handling) could use this flaw to escalate their privileges on the system.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关。具体来说，问题涉及到“unprivileged user namespaces”功能。如果系统启用了非特权用户命名空间（unprivileged user namespaces），则攻击者可以利用此漏洞。此外，问题还涉及文件系统上下文（Filesystem Context）和参数解析逻辑。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会影响容器的隔离性。在容器环境中（如 Docker），如果容器启用了 unprivileged user namespaces 或具有 namespaced CAP_SYS_ADMIN 权限，则攻击者可能利用此漏洞从容器内部进行权限提升，进而影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据分析要求，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/0xxx/CVE-2022-0324.json
|
||||
There is a vulnerability in DHCPv6 packet parsing code that could be explored by remote attacker to craft a packet that could cause buffer overflow in a memcpy call, leading to out-of-bounds memory write that would cause dhcp6relay to crash. Dhcp6relay is a critical process and could cause dhcp relay docker to shutdown.
|
||||
|
||||
Discovered by Eugene Lim of GovTech Singapore.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 提及了 `dhcp relay docker` 会受到影响。这表明问题与 Docker 容器相关，并且可能影响到容器内的关键进程 (`dhcp6relay`)。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
根据描述，漏洞会导致 `dhcp6relay` 崩溃，进而导致 `dhcp relay docker` 关闭。这种影响似乎是局限于特定容器（`dhcp relay docker`）内部的，没有明确提到会对其他容器或宿主机造成直接影响。然而，如果 `dhcp relay docker` 是一个共享网络配置或提供关键服务的容器，它的崩溃可能会间接影响依赖它的其他容器或宿主机的服务稳定性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 满足（与容器相关），条件 2 部分满足（虽然直接影响有限，但可能存在间接影响）。因此，返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/0xxx/CVE-2022-0492.json
|
||||
A vulnerability was found in the Linux kernel’s cgroup_release_agent_write in the kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c function. This flaw, under certain circumstances, allows the use of the cgroups v1 release_agent feature to escalate privileges and bypass the namespace isolation unexpectedly.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 和隔离相关。描述中明确提到 cgroups v1 的 `release_agent` 功能，并且提到了可以绕过 namespace 的隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。通过利用 cgroups v1 的 `release_agent` 功能，攻击者可能能够突破容器的隔离机制，从而对宿主机或其他容器造成潜在威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/0xxx/CVE-2022-0532.json
|
||||
An incorrect sysctls validation vulnerability was found in CRI-O 1.18 and earlier. The sysctls from the list of "safe" sysctls specified for the cluster will be applied to the host if an attacker is able to create a pod with a hostIPC and hostNetwork kernel namespace.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与namespace和容器隔离相关。描述中提到攻击者可以通过创建一个具有`hostIPC`和`hostNetwork`内核命名空间的Pod，导致指定的`sysctls`被应用到主机上。这表明问题涉及容器的命名空间配置以及其与宿主机的交互。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器影响宿主机。由于攻击者可以利用`hostIPC`和`hostNetwork`命名空间将`sysctls`应用到宿主机，这可能会破坏宿主机的安全性或稳定性，进而可能影响在同一宿主机上运行的其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
该CVE满足条件1和条件2，因此不会返回"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/1xxx/CVE-2022-1055.json
|
||||
A use-after-free exists in the Linux Kernel in tc_new_tfilter that could allow a local attacker to gain privilege escalation. The exploit requires unprivileged user namespaces. We recommend upgrading past commit 04c2a47ffb13c29778e2a14e414ad4cb5a5db4b5
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞提到了“unprivileged user namespaces”，这表明它与用户命名空间（user namespace）有关。用户命名空间是Linux内核中用于隔离用户和组ID的一种机制，广泛应用于容器技术（如Docker）中以提供隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致特权提升（privilege escalation）。由于其利用需要“unprivileged user namespaces”，而这些命名空间通常在容器环境中被启用，因此攻击者可能通过此漏洞从容器内部逃逸，影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/1xxx/CVE-2022-1833.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in AMQ Broker Operator 7.9.4 installed via UI using OperatorHub where a low-privilege user that has access to the namespace where the AMQ Operator is deployed has access to clusterwide edit rights by checking the secrets. The service account used for building the Operator gives more permission than expected and an attacker could benefit from it. This requires at least an already compromised low-privilege account or insider attack.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。问题发生在 AMQ Broker Operator 的部署中，低权限用户可以通过访问特定 namespace 中的秘密（secrets）获得集群范围的编辑权限。这表明在 namespace 层面的权限控制存在漏洞，可能导致隔离机制被破坏。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
可能会。由于服务账户的权限超出预期，攻击者可能利用此漏洞获取集群范围的编辑权限，进而影响其他容器或宿主机。例如，攻击者可以修改其他容器的配置、访问敏感数据，甚至对宿主机进行未授权的操作。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/23xxx/CVE-2022-23774.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop before 4.4.4 on Windows allows attackers to move arbitrary files.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器相关。
|
||||
原因：描述中明确提到 Docker Desktop，并且涉及文件移动操作，这可能与容器的文件系统隔离机制有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
原因：描述中提到“允许攻击者移动任意文件”，这意味着攻击者可能利用此漏洞突破容器的隔离限制，对宿主机或其他容器的文件系统进行未授权访问或修改。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/24xxx/CVE-2022-24122.json
|
||||
kernel/ucount.c in the Linux kernel 5.14 through 5.16.4, when unprivileged user namespaces are enabled, allows a use-after-free and privilege escalation because a ucounts object can outlive its namespace.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与 namespace 相关。描述中明确提到“unprivileged user namespaces”，即非特权用户命名空间，这是 Linux 容器（如 Docker）实现隔离的重要机制之一。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，可能会导致影响。由于存在 use-after-free 和权限提升漏洞，攻击者可以利用此漏洞突破容器的隔离机制，进而可能影响同一宿主机上的其他容器，甚至完全控制宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/24xxx/CVE-2022-24769.json
|
||||
Moby is an open-source project created by Docker to enable and accelerate software containerization. A bug was found in Moby (Docker Engine) prior to version 20.10.14 where containers were incorrectly started with non-empty inheritable Linux process capabilities, creating an atypical Linux environment and enabling programs with inheritable file capabilities to elevate those capabilities to the permitted set during `execve(2)`. Normally, when executable programs have specified permitted file capabilities, otherwise unprivileged users and processes can execute those programs and gain the specified file capabilities up to the bounding set. Due to this bug, containers which included executable programs with inheritable file capabilities allowed otherwise unprivileged users and processes to additionally gain these inheritable file capabilities up to the container's bounding set. Containers which use Linux users and groups to perform privilege separation inside the container are most directly impacted. This bug did not affect the container security sandbox as the inheritable set never contained more capabilities than were included in the container's bounding set. This bug has been fixed in Moby (Docker Engine) 20.10.14. Running containers should be stopped, deleted, and recreated for the inheritable capabilities to be reset. This fix changes Moby (Docker Engine) behavior such that containers are started with a more typical Linux environment. As a workaround, the entry point of a container can be modified to use a utility like `capsh(1)` to drop inheritable capabilities prior to the primary process starting.
|
||||
analysis: ### 分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到 Moby（Docker Engine）中的一个漏洞，涉及容器的启动行为以及 Linux 进程能力（capabilities）的设置。这直接影响了容器内的进程权限管理，因此与容器和隔离机制密切相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞允许容器内的非特权用户或进程通过 inheritable file capabilities 提升权限，但这仅限于容器的 bounding set 范围内。由于 inheritable set 不会包含超出容器 bounding set 的能力，因此该漏洞不会直接突破容器的安全沙箱，也不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。然而，它可能削弱容器内部基于用户和组的权限分离机制，从而间接增加攻击面。
|
||||
|
||||
### 结论：
|
||||
- 满足条件 1 和 2 的部分分析要求。
|
||||
- 该漏洞虽然不会直接影响宿主机或其他容器，但会对容器内部的权限隔离产生负面影响，需要关注并修复。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/24xxx/CVE-2022-24778.json
|
||||
The imgcrypt library provides API exensions for containerd to support encrypted container images and implements the ctd-decoder command line tool for use by containerd to decrypt encrypted container images. The imgcrypt function `CheckAuthorization` is supposed to check whether the current used is authorized to access an encrypted image and prevent the user from running an image that another user previously decrypted on the same system. In versions prior to 1.1.4, a failure occurs when an image with a ManifestList is used and the architecture of the local host is not the first one in the ManifestList. Only the first architecture in the list was tested, which may not have its layers available locally since it could not be run on the host architecture. Therefore, the verdict on unavailable layers was that the image could be run anticipating that image run failure would occur later due to the layers not being available. However, this verdict to allow the image to run enabled other architectures in the ManifestList to run an image without providing keys if that image had previously been decrypted. A patch has been applied to imgcrypt 1.1.4. Workarounds may include usage of different namespaces for each remote user.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器和隔离相关。`imgcrypt` 是为 `containerd` 提供支持加密容器镜像的 API 扩展，并且涉及到 `ctd-decoder` 命令行工具用于解密加密的容器镜像。此外，描述中提到可以通过使用不同的命名空间（namespaces）作为解决方法之一，这表明该问题与容器隔离机制有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器运行时的安全风险。由于 `CheckAuthorization` 函数的实现问题，如果某个用户之前在系统上解密了一个镜像，其他用户可能无需提供正确的密钥即可运行该镜像中的其他架构。这种行为破坏了容器之间的隔离性，可能会导致未经授权的访问或其他安全问题，进而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
该 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2，因此需要返回上述分析内容，而不是 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/25xxx/CVE-2022-25365.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop before 4.5.1 on Windows allows attackers to move arbitrary files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2022-23774.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器相关。原因是它明确提到了 Docker Desktop 在 Windows 上的问题，Docker 是一个容器化平台，因此该问题与容器技术直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。根据描述，攻击者可以移动任意文件，这种行为可能突破容器的隔离性，进而对宿主机或其他容器造成潜在影响。
|
||||
|
||||
总结：条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/26xxx/CVE-2022-26659.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop installer on Windows in versions before 4.6.0 allows an attacker to overwrite any administrator writable files by creating a symlink in place of where the installer writes its log file. Starting from version 4.6.0, the Docker Desktop installer, when run elevated, will write its log files to a location not writable by non-administrator users.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该CVE描述的是Docker Desktop在Windows上的安装程序漏洞，涉及日志文件的写入位置以及符号链接（symlink）的滥用。虽然它与Docker相关，但并未直接涉及namespace、cgroup、容器运行时隔离等技术细节。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞发生在Docker Desktop的安装阶段，而不是容器运行时。攻击者可以通过创建符号链接覆盖管理员可写的文件，但这并不直接影响容器的运行时行为，也不会导致容器逃逸或影响其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件1和条件2均不满足，因此返回：
|
||||
**N/A**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/27xxx/CVE-2022-27649.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in Podman, where containers were started incorrectly with non-empty default permissions. A vulnerability was found in Moby (Docker Engine), where containers were started incorrectly with non-empty inheritable Linux process capabilities. This flaw allows an attacker with access to programs with inheritable file capabilities to elevate those capabilities to the permitted set when execve(2) runs.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息明确提到了Podman和Moby（Docker Engine），这些都是与容器技术密切相关的项目。问题涉及容器启动时的权限配置错误，特别是Linux进程能力（capabilities）的处理不当，这直接影响了容器的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，由于容器被错误地赋予了非空的继承能力（inheritable Linux process capabilities），攻击者可以利用这些能力提升权限。这种权限提升可能会导致容器突破其隔离环境，从而影响同一宿主机上的其他容器或直接危害宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/27xxx/CVE-2022-27650.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in crun where containers were incorrectly started with non-empty default permissions. A vulnerability was found in Moby (Docker Engine) where containers were started incorrectly with non-empty inheritable Linux process capabilities. This flaw allows an attacker with access to programs with inheritable file capabilities to elevate those capabilities to the permitted set when execve(2) runs.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器相关。描述中明确提到问题发生在 `crun` 和 `Moby (Docker Engine)` 中，这两个都是与容器运行时相关的组件。具体问题涉及容器启动时的权限配置不当。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器内的攻击者提升权限，从而可能影响其他容器或宿主机。由于容器被错误地赋予了非空的继承能力（inheritable Linux process capabilities），攻击者可以利用这些能力通过 `execve(2)` 将其提升到允许的权限集（permitted set）。这种权限提升可能会突破容器的隔离机制，进而对宿主机或其他容器造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2，无需返回N/A。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/27xxx/CVE-2022-27651.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in buildah where containers were incorrectly started with non-empty default permissions. A bug was found in Moby (Docker Engine) where containers were incorrectly started with non-empty inheritable Linux process capabilities, enabling an attacker with access to programs with inheritable file capabilities to elevate those capabilities to the permitted set when execve(2) runs. This has the potential to impact confidentiality and integrity.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器技术相关。描述中明确提到Buildah和Moby（Docker Engine），这些都是用于创建和管理容器的工具。问题涉及容器启动时的权限配置不当，可能影响容器的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，可能会导致影响。由于容器被错误地赋予了非空的继承性Linux进程能力（inheritable Linux process capabilities），攻击者可以利用这些能力提升权限，从而可能突破容器的隔离机制，影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件1和条件2均满足，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/27xxx/CVE-2022-27652.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in cri-o, where containers were incorrectly started with non-empty default permissions. A vulnerability was found in Moby (Docker Engine) where containers started incorrectly with non-empty inheritable Linux process capabilities. This flaw allows an attacker with access to programs with inheritable file capabilities to elevate those capabilities to the permitted set when execve(2) runs.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息明确提到cri-o和Moby（Docker Engine），这些都是与容器技术相关的组件。问题涉及容器启动时的权限设置，特别是Linux进程能力（capabilities）的处理，这直接影响容器的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器内的攻击者提升权限，将继承的能力（inheritable capabilities）提升为允许的能力（permitted capabilities）。这种权限提升可能使攻击者突破容器的隔离，进而影响同一宿主机上的其他容器或直接危害宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回分析结果而非"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/29xxx/CVE-2022-29180.json
|
||||
A vulnerability in which attackers could forge HTTP requests to manipulate the `charm` data directory to access or delete anything on the server. This has been patched and is available in release [v0.12.1](https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/releases/tag/v0.12.1). We recommend that all users running self-hosted `charm` instances update immediately. This vulnerability was found in-house and we haven't been notified of any potential exploiters. ### Additional notes * Encrypted user data uploaded to the Charm server is safe as Charm servers cannot decrypt user data. This includes filenames, paths, and all key-value data. * Users running the official Charm [Docker images](https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/blob/main/docker.md) are at minimal risk because the exploit is limited to the containerized filesystem.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 提到使用官方 Charm Docker 镜像的用户风险较小，因为漏洞的利用被限制在容器化的文件系统中。这表明该问题与容器化环境（如 Docker）及其隔离机制有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
根据描述，使用官方 Charm Docker 镜像的用户风险较小，因为漏洞的利用被限制在容器化的文件系统中。这意味着该漏洞不会突破容器的隔离机制，从而影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
该 CVE 与容器隔离相关，但不会导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/2xxx/CVE-2022-2403.json
|
||||
A credentials leak was found in the OpenShift Container Platform. The private key for the external cluster certificate was stored incorrectly in the oauth-serving-cert ConfigMaps, and accessible to any authenticated OpenShift user or service-account. A malicious user could exploit this flaw by reading the oauth-serving-cert ConfigMap in the openshift-config-managed namespace, compromising any web traffic secured using that certificate.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器和 namespace 相关。问题发生在 OpenShift Container Platform 中，涉及 `oauth-serving-cert` ConfigMap 的存储位置以及其在 `openshift-config-managed` namespace 中的访问控制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
这个漏洞不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机的运行时安全性，但它可能导致敏感信息（如私钥）泄露。如果恶意用户获取了外部集群证书的私钥，他们可以解密受该证书保护的网络流量，从而间接影响整个集群的安全性。虽然这不是一个直接的容器逃逸漏洞，但泄露的凭据可能被用于进一步攻击集群中的其他资源。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
不满足条件 2，因此返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/2xxx/CVE-2022-2837.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in coreDNS. This flaw allows a malicious user to redirect traffic intended for external top-level domains (TLD) to a pod they control by creating projects and namespaces that match the TLD.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器相关。问题描述中提到恶意用户可以通过创建特定的项目和命名空间（namespace）来劫持外部顶级域名（TLD）的流量，并将其重定向到他们控制的 Pod。这表明问题涉及 Kubernetes 中的命名空间（namespace）机制以及容器网络流量的路由。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。通过利用此漏洞，攻击者可以劫持原本发往外部 TLD 的流量并将其重定向到其控制的 Pod。这种行为可能会导致数据泄露、流量劫持或其他安全问题，从而破坏容器之间的隔离性，甚至可能间接影响宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此返回分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/30xxx/CVE-2022-30137.json
|
||||
Executive Summary
|
||||
An Elevation of Privilege (EOP) vulnerability has been identified within Service Fabric clusters that run Docker containers. Exploitation of this EOP vulnerability requires an attacker to gain remote code execution within a container. All Service Fabric and Docker versions are impacted.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 明确提到与 Docker 容器相关，并且涉及 Service Fabric 集群中运行的容器。这表明它与容器技术及其隔离机制有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，根据描述，这是一个权限提升 (EOP) 漏洞。攻击者需要先在容器内获得远程代码执行能力，然后利用此漏洞进一步提升权限。这种类型的漏洞可能允许攻击者突破容器的隔离限制，从而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果如下：
|
||||
- 与容器和隔离机制相关。
|
||||
- 可能导致容器突破隔离，影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/31xxx/CVE-2022-31214.json
|
||||
A Privilege Context Switching issue was discovered in join.c in Firejail 0.9.68. By crafting a bogus Firejail container that is accepted by the Firejail setuid-root program as a join target, a local attacker can enter an environment in which the Linux user namespace is still the initial user namespace, the NO_NEW_PRIVS prctl is not activated, and the entered mount namespace is under the attacker's control. In this way, the filesystem layout can be adjusted to gain root privileges through execution of available setuid-root binaries such as su or sudo.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。问题出现在 Firejail 的 `join.c` 文件中，Firejail 是一个用于沙盒化应用程序的工具，利用 Linux namespaces 提供隔离环境。漏洞描述中明确提到用户命名空间（user namespace）和挂载命名空间（mount namespace），并且涉及通过调整文件系统布局来突破隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
虽然此漏洞是针对 Firejail 的，但其核心问题在于对命名空间的不当处理。如果类似的漏洞存在于其他容器运行时（如 Docker 的运行时），也可能导致攻击者突破容器隔离，进入初始用户命名空间，并可能进一步影响宿主机或其他容器。因此，从原理上讲，这种类型的漏洞有潜在风险影响容器运行时的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/31xxx/CVE-2022-31647.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop before 4.6.0 on Windows allows attackers to delete any file through the hyperv/destroy dockerBackendV2 API via a symlink in the DataFolder parameter, a different vulnerability than CVE-2022-26659.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器技术相关。它涉及 Docker Desktop 在 Windows 上的一个 API (`hyperv/destroy dockerBackendV2`)，并且描述中提到可以通过符号链接（symlink）在 `DataFolder` 参数中进行操作。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞允许攻击者通过特定 API 删除宿主机上的任意文件。这表明攻击者可以利用此漏洞破坏宿主机的文件系统，从而影响整个系统的稳定性，甚至可能波及其他容器的正常运行。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 该 CVE 满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/32xxx/CVE-2022-32250.json
|
||||
net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c in the Linux kernel through 5.18.1 allows a local user (able to create user/net namespaces) to escalate privileges to root because an incorrect NFT_STATEFUL_EXPR check leads to a use-after-free.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 提到 `user/net namespaces`，这表明它与 Linux 命名空间（namespace）机制相关。命名空间是容器技术（如 Docker）实现隔离的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
有可能。由于该漏洞允许本地用户通过错误的 `NFT_STATEFUL_EXPR` 检查导致 use-after-free，从而实现权限提升到 root。如果攻击者在一个容器中利用此漏洞，可能突破容器的隔离限制，进而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/34xxx/CVE-2022-34292.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop for Windows before 4.6.0 allows attackers to overwrite any file through a symlink attack on the hyperv/create dockerBackendV2 API by controlling the DataFolder parameter for DockerDesktop.vhdx, a similar issue to CVE-2022-31647.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 描述中提到 Docker Desktop for Windows 的 API 存在一个问题，允许攻击者通过符号链接（symlink）攻击覆盖任意文件。这涉及到 Docker Desktop 的内部实现和虚拟磁盘文件（`DockerDesktop.vhdx`）的处理，因此与容器技术相关。然而，它并未直接涉及 namespace、cgroup 或容器隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
根据描述，攻击者可以通过控制 `DataFolder` 参数来覆盖宿主机上的任意文件。这种行为会直接影响宿主机的安全性，可能会导致数据损坏或恶意代码注入，从而对整个系统造成威胁。因此，该漏洞确实可能导致容器运行时影响宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：
|
||||
- 条件 1 满足：与容器技术相关。
|
||||
- 条件 2 满足：会影响宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
无需返回 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/34xxx/CVE-2022-34372.json
|
||||
Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery versions before 19.11.0.2 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker may potentially access and interact with the docker registry API leading to an authentication bypass. The attacker may potentially alter the docker images leading to a loss of integrity and confidentiality
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息提到攻击者可以通过漏洞访问和交互 Docker Registry API，这直接与容器技术（Docker）相关。此外，提到攻击者可能篡改 Docker 镜像，这也涉及容器的完整性和机密性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，攻击者通过此漏洞篡改 Docker 镜像后，可能导致以下后果：
|
||||
- 被篡改的镜像在运行时可能包含恶意代码，从而影响同一宿主机上的其他容器。
|
||||
- 如果容器以特权模式运行或存在其他配置问题，可能进一步威胁到宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，该漏洞可能间接导致容器之间的隔离被破坏，甚至威胁到宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/34xxx/CVE-2022-34918.json
|
||||
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.18.9. A type confusion bug in nft_set_elem_init (leading to a buffer overflow) could be used by a local attacker to escalate privileges, a different vulnerability than CVE-2022-32250. (The attacker can obtain root access, but must start with an unprivileged user namespace to obtain CAP_NET_ADMIN access.) This can be fixed in nft_setelem_parse_data in net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此漏洞与 namespace 相关。描述中明确提到攻击者需要从一个非特权用户命名空间（unprivileged user namespace）开始，以获取 `CAP_NET_ADMIN` 权限。这表明该漏洞利用了 Linux 命名空间的特性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
有可能。由于该漏洞允许本地攻击者通过类型混淆漏洞和缓冲区溢出实现权限提升（获得 root 访问权限），如果攻击者在一个容器内利用此漏洞，则可能突破容器的隔离机制，影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。特别是当容器使用非特权用户命名空间时，攻击者仍可能通过此漏洞获取更高的权限。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/36xxx/CVE-2022-36109.json
|
||||
Moby is an open-source project created by Docker to enable software containerization. A bug was found in Moby (Docker Engine) where supplementary groups are not set up properly. If an attacker has direct access to a container and manipulates their supplementary group access, they may be able to use supplementary group access to bypass primary group restrictions in some cases, potentially gaining access to sensitive information or gaining the ability to execute code in that container. This bug is fixed in Moby (Docker Engine) 20.10.18. Running containers should be stopped and restarted for the permissions to be fixed. For users unable to upgrade, this problem can be worked around by not using the `"USER $USERNAME"` Dockerfile instruction. Instead by calling `ENTRYPOINT ["su", "-", "user"]` the supplementary groups will be set up properly.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器相关。Moby（Docker Engine）是一个用于实现软件容器化的项目，问题涉及容器内的用户和组权限设置，这直接影响容器的隔离特性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
在这种情况下，攻击者需要直接访问一个容器并操纵其补充组权限。虽然这可能允许攻击者在受影响的容器内绕过某些限制（例如访问敏感信息或执行代码），但没有明确证据表明此漏洞可以直接突破容器隔离，影响其他容器或宿主机。因此，该漏洞的影响主要限于单个容器内部。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 满足，条件 2 不完全满足（影响限于单个容器）。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/37xxx/CVE-2022-37326.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop for Windows before 4.6.0 allows attackers to delete (or create) any file through the dockerBackendV2 windowscontainers/start API by controlling the pidfile field inside the DaemonJSON field in the WindowsContainerStartRequest class. This can indirectly lead to privilege escalation.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 提及了 Docker Desktop for Windows 的 `dockerBackendV2 windowscontainers/start API`，并且涉及对 `pidfile` 字段的控制。这表明问题与容器的启动配置和管理有关，因此与容器技术（container）相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
攻击者可以通过控制 `pidfile` 字段来删除或创建任意文件，这种行为可能会直接影响宿主机的文件系统。如果攻击者利用此漏洞修改关键系统文件，可能会导致宿主机被完全控制或容器之间的隔离机制被破坏。因此，该漏洞可能导致容器运行时影响宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 与容器和隔离相关。
|
||||
- 可能会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/38xxx/CVE-2022-38730.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop for Windows before 4.6 allows attackers to overwrite any file through the windowscontainers/start dockerBackendV2 API by controlling the data-root field inside the DaemonJSON field in the WindowsContainerStartRequest class. This allows exploiting a symlink vulnerability in ..\dataRoot\network\files\local-kv.db because of a TOCTOU race condition.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器技术相关。它涉及到Docker Desktop for Windows中的`dockerBackendV2 API`，并且通过控制`DaemonJSON`字段中的`data-root`，可以利用符号链接漏洞影响容器的文件系统配置。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器逃逸或影响宿主机。攻击者可以通过覆盖宿主机上的任意文件（如`local-kv.db`），利用TOCTOU（Time-of-check to time-of-use）竞争条件漏洞，进而可能影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此不需要返回"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/39xxx/CVE-2022-39206.json
|
||||
Onedev is an open source, self-hosted Git Server with CI/CD and Kanban. When using Docker-based job executors, the Docker socket (e.g. /var/run/docker.sock on Linux) is mounted into each Docker step. Users that can define and trigger CI/CD jobs on a project could use this to control the Docker daemon on the host machine. This is a known dangerous pattern, as it can be used to break out of Docker containers and, in most cases, gain root privileges on the host system. This issue allows regular (non-admin) users to potentially take over the build infrastructure of a OneDev instance. Attackers need to have an account (or be able to register one) and need permission to create a project. Since code.onedev.io has the right preconditions for this to be exploited by remote attackers, it could have been used to hijack builds of OneDev itself, e.g. by injecting malware into the docker images that are built and pushed to Docker Hub. The impact is increased by this as described before. Users are advised to upgrade to 7.3.0 or higher. There are no known workarounds for this issue.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 描述中明确提到 Docker 容器的使用场景，尤其是 `/var/run/docker.sock` 被挂载到容器中。这涉及到容器的隔离性问题，因为通过访问 Docker 套接字，用户可以与宿主机上的 Docker 守护进程交互，从而突破容器的隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞会导致容器突破隔离，影响宿主机甚至其他容器。攻击者可以通过控制 Docker 守护进程，在宿主机上执行任意命令，或者创建、删除、修改其他容器。这种行为可能会导致宿主机被完全控制，并可能进一步影响同一宿主机上的其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件 1 和条件 2 都满足，因此返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 与容器隔离相关：是
|
||||
- 可能影响其他容器或宿主机：是
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/39xxx/CVE-2022-39321.json
|
||||
GitHub Actions Runner is the application that runs a job from a GitHub Actions workflow. The actions runner invokes the docker cli directly in order to run job containers, service containers, or container actions. A bug in the logic for how the environment is encoded into these docker commands was discovered in versions prior to 2.296.2, 2.293.1, 2.289.4, 2.285.2, and 2.283.4 that allows an input to escape the environment variable and modify that docker command invocation directly. Jobs that use container actions, job containers, or service containers alongside untrusted user inputs in environment variables may be vulnerable. The Actions Runner has been patched, both on `github.com` and hotfixes for GHES and GHAE customers in versions 2.296.2, 2.293.1, 2.289.4, 2.285.2, and 2.283.4. GHES and GHAE customers may want to patch their instance in order to have their runners automatically upgrade to these new runner versions. As a workaround, users may consider removing any container actions, job containers, or service containers from their jobs until they are able to upgrade their runner versions.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器相关。问题涉及GitHub Actions Runner在调用Docker CLI时，由于环境变量编码逻辑的漏洞，可能导致恶意输入篡改Docker命令的执行。这直接影响到容器的运行方式。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会影响其他容器或宿主机。如果攻击者能够利用此漏洞修改Docker命令的执行，他们可能会绕过预期的隔离机制，从而对宿主机或其他容器造成潜在威胁。例如，通过篡改Docker命令，攻击者可能注入恶意参数，导致容器以非预期的方式运行，甚至可能逃逸到宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/41xxx/CVE-2022-41737.json
|
||||
IBM Storage Scale Container Native Storage Access 5.1.2.1 through 5.1.7.0 could allow a local attacker to initiate connections from a container outside the current namespace. IBM X-Force ID: 237811.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到“initiate connections from a container outside the current namespace”，即从容器中发起连接到当前命名空间之外的目标。这直接涉及到了容器的命名空间（namespace）隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，由于该漏洞允许容器突破其当前的命名空间限制，可能会导致容器访问或影响其他容器或宿主机上的资源。这种行为破坏了容器之间的隔离性，可能带来安全风险。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，该CVE满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/41xxx/CVE-2022-41939.json
|
||||
knative.dev/func is is a client library and CLI enabling the development and deployment of Kubernetes functions. Developers using a malicious or compromised third-party buildpack could expose their registry credentials or local docker socket to a malicious `lifecycle` container. This issues has been patched in PR #1442, and is part of release 1.8.1. This issue only affects users who are using function buildpacks from third-parties; pinning the builder image to a specific content-hash with a valid `lifecycle` image will also mitigate the attack.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器和隔离相关。描述中提到“expose their registry credentials or local docker socket to a malicious `lifecycle` container”，表明问题涉及将敏感信息（如 Docker Socket）暴露给恶意的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，这可能导致影响。如果攻击者利用此漏洞，通过恶意的 `lifecycle` 容器访问本地 Docker Socket，他们可以进一步控制宿主机上的其他容器或直接对宿主机进行攻击。这种行为破坏了容器之间的隔离性，并可能危及整个容器化环境的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/42xxx/CVE-2022-42919.json
|
||||
Python 3.9.x before 3.9.16 and 3.10.x before 3.10.9 on Linux allows local privilege escalation in a non-default configuration. The Python multiprocessing library, when used with the forkserver start method on Linux, allows pickles to be deserialized from any user in the same machine local network namespace, which in many system configurations means any user on the same machine. Pickles can execute arbitrary code. Thus, this allows for local user privilege escalation to the user that any forkserver process is running as. Setting multiprocessing.util.abstract_sockets_supported to False is a workaround. The forkserver start method for multiprocessing is not the default start method. This issue is Linux specific because only Linux supports abstract namespace sockets. CPython before 3.9 does not make use of Linux abstract namespace sockets by default. Support for users manually specifying an abstract namespace socket was added as a bugfix in 3.7.8 and 3.8.3, but users would need to make specific uncommon API calls in order to do that in CPython before 3.9.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 涉及 Linux 的机器本地网络命名空间（machine local network namespace），并且提到 Linux 抽象命名空间套接字（abstract namespace sockets）。虽然它提到了命名空间，但这里的命名空间是指 Linux 的 socket 抽象命名空间，而不是与容器隔离直接相关的 mount namespace、PID namespace 等。因此，这个漏洞并不直接与容器或隔离技术（如 cgroup、namespace）相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞主要影响使用 Python `multiprocessing` 库的程序，并且需要特定配置（`forkserver` 启动方法和抽象命名空间套接字）。此漏洞允许在相同机器上的用户通过反序列化 pickles 执行任意代码，从而实现权限提升。然而，这种攻击的前提是攻击者已经能够在目标机器上运行代码。在容器环境中，如果容器没有共享宿主机的网络命名空间（即容器有自己的独立网络命名空间），那么攻击范围将被限制在容器内部，不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。因此，该漏洞在默认容器配置下不会直接导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
根据以上分析，该 CVE 不满足条件 1 和条件 2，因此返回：
|
||||
**N/A**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/46xxx/CVE-2022-46167.json
|
||||
Capsule is a multi-tenancy and policy-based framework for Kubernetes. Prior to version 0.1.3, a ServiceAccount deployed in a Tenant Namespace, when granted with `PATCH` capabilities on its own Namespace, is able to edit it and remove the Owner Reference, breaking the reconciliation of the Capsule Operator and removing all the enforcement like Pod Security annotations, Network Policies, Limit Range and Resource Quota items. An attacker could detach the Namespace from a Tenant that is forbidding starting privileged Pods using the Pod Security labels by removing the OwnerReference, removing the enforcement labels, and being able to start privileged containers that would be able to start a generic Kubernetes privilege escalation. Patches have been released for version 0.1.3. No known workarounds are available.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。问题的核心在于 Kubernetes 的多租户框架 Capsule 中，ServiceAccount 在特定权限下可以修改其所在 Namespace 的 Owner Reference，从而破坏 Capsule Operator 的协调机制，并移除诸如 Pod Security 标签、网络策略等强制执行的安全措施。这直接影响了 namespace 的隔离性，使得攻击者可以在不受限制的情况下启动特权容器。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。通过移除 Owner Reference 和安全标签，攻击者可以启动特权容器，这种容器能够突破默认的隔离机制，访问宿主机资源或干扰其他容器的正常运行。这可能会导致宿主机上的敏感信息泄露、资源滥用，甚至进一步的权限提升和系统控制。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/47xxx/CVE-2022-47952.json
|
||||
lxc-user-nic in lxc through 5.0.1 is installed setuid root, and may allow local users to infer whether any file exists, even within a protected directory tree, because "Failed to open" often indicates that a file does not exist, whereas "does not refer to a network namespace path" often indicates that a file exists. NOTE: this is different from CVE-2018-6556 because the CVE-2018-6556 fix design was based on the premise that "we will report back to the user that the open() failed but the user has no way of knowing why it failed"; however, in many realistic cases, there are no plausible reasons for failing except that the file does not exist.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
该 CVE 提到 `lxc-user-nic`，这是一个与 LXC（Linux Containers）相关的工具。LXC 是一种轻量级的容器技术，依赖于 Linux 的 namespaces 和 cgroups 实现隔离。因此，这个 CVE 明确与容器和 namespace 相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
根据描述，该漏洞允许本地用户通过错误消息推断某个文件是否存在。这种信息泄露可能会被攻击者利用来获取敏感路径的信息，但并没有提到直接的权限提升或对宿主机或其他容器的直接影响。然而，由于它涉及 LXC 的网络命名空间管理工具 (`lxc-user-nic`)，如果攻击者能够利用此漏洞进一步探索系统，可能会间接威胁到容器隔离性或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 部分满足，因此返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 与 namespace 和容器技术相关。
|
||||
- 可能间接影响容器隔离性，但需要结合其他攻击手段才能对宿主机或其他容器造成实质性威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/48xxx/CVE-2022-48638.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
cgroup: cgroup_get_from_id() must check the looked-up kn is a directory
|
||||
|
||||
cgroup has to be one kernfs dir, otherwise kernel panic is caused,
|
||||
especially cgroup id is provide from userspace.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关。
|
||||
- 描述中明确提到 `cgroup` 和 `kernfs dir`，并且涉及用户空间提供的 cgroup ID，这表明它与 cgroup 的实现和使用有关。
|
||||
- cgroup 是 Linux 容器（如 Docker）实现资源限制和隔离的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
- 如果 `cgroup_get_from_id()` 没有正确检查查找的 kernfs 节点是否为目录，可能会导致内核崩溃（kernel panic）。这种问题可能被恶意用户利用，通过提供无效或恶意构造的 cgroup ID 来触发内核崩溃。
|
||||
- 在共享内核的容器环境中（如 Docker），这种漏洞可能允许一个容器影响其他容器或宿主机的稳定性。
|
||||
|
||||
结论：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/48xxx/CVE-2022-48671.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
cgroup: Add missing cpus_read_lock() to cgroup_attach_task_all()
|
||||
|
||||
syzbot is hitting percpu_rwsem_assert_held(&cpu_hotplug_lock) warning at
|
||||
cpuset_attach() [1], for commit 4f7e7236435ca0ab ("cgroup: Fix
|
||||
threadgroup_rwsem <-> cpus_read_lock() deadlock") missed that
|
||||
cpuset_attach() is also called from cgroup_attach_task_all().
|
||||
Add cpus_read_lock() like what cgroup_procs_write_start() does.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 cgroup 相关，因为它涉及到 `cgroup_attach_task_all()` 函数以及 `cpus_read_lock()` 的使用。Cgroup 是 Linux 内核中的一个功能模块，用于限制、控制和隔离进程组的资源使用（如 CPU、内存等），并且是容器技术（如 Docker）实现资源隔离的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 尽管该漏洞涉及 cgroup，但它主要是关于内核中锁机制的正确性问题（`percpu_rwsem_assert_held(&cpu_hotplug_lock)` 警告）。从描述来看，这个问题并不会直接影响容器的隔离性或导致一个容器影响其他容器或宿主机。它更像是一个内核代码路径的健壮性修复，而不是安全漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**: N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/48xxx/CVE-2022-48757.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
net: fix information leakage in /proc/net/ptype
|
||||
|
||||
In one net namespace, after creating a packet socket without binding
|
||||
it to a device, users in other net namespaces can observe the new
|
||||
`packet_type` added by this packet socket by reading `/proc/net/ptype`
|
||||
file. This is minor information leakage as packet socket is
|
||||
namespace aware.
|
||||
|
||||
Add a net pointer in `packet_type` to keep the net namespace of
|
||||
of corresponding packet socket. In `ptype_seq_show`, this net pointer
|
||||
must be checked when it is not NULL.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与namespace相关。具体来说，它涉及网络命名空间（net namespace）。问题发生在创建一个未绑定到设备的packet socket时，其他网络命名空间中的用户可以观察到该packet socket添加的`packet_type`信息。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞导致的是信息泄露问题，而非权限提升或直接破坏隔离性的问题。虽然其他网络命名空间中的用户可以观察到新增的`packet_type`，但这只是轻微的信息泄露，并不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。然而，在多租户环境中，这种信息泄露可能会被用于推测某些敏感信息，因此仍需注意。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2的部分要求，但影响程度有限。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/48xxx/CVE-2022-48799.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
perf: Fix list corruption in perf_cgroup_switch()
|
||||
|
||||
There's list corruption on cgrp_cpuctx_list. This happens on the
|
||||
following path:
|
||||
|
||||
perf_cgroup_switch: list_for_each_entry(cgrp_cpuctx_list)
|
||||
cpu_ctx_sched_in
|
||||
ctx_sched_in
|
||||
ctx_pinned_sched_in
|
||||
merge_sched_in
|
||||
perf_cgroup_event_disable: remove the event from the list
|
||||
|
||||
Use list_for_each_entry_safe() to allow removing an entry during
|
||||
iteration.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 与 cgroup 相关。问题出现在 `perf_cgroup_switch()` 函数中，涉及到 `cgrp_cpuctx_list` 的列表操作。Cgroups（控制组）是 Linux 内核中的一个功能，用于限制、控制和隔离进程组的资源使用（如 CPU、内存、磁盘 I/O 等）。Perf 工具利用 cgroups 来对性能事件进行分组管理。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
可能会。由于该漏洞涉及 cgroup 的列表操作，如果出现列表损坏（list corruption），可能会导致以下后果：
|
||||
- 在多租户环境中（例如容器编排系统 Kubernetes 中），不同容器之间的资源监控和限制可能失效。
|
||||
- 如果容器内的进程触发了该漏洞，可能会导致宿主机上的 cgroup 数据结构损坏，从而影响整个系统的稳定性，甚至可能导致宿主机崩溃。
|
||||
- 攻击者可能利用此漏洞逃逸容器环境，影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，该漏洞有可能影响容器的隔离性，并对宿主机和其他容器造成潜在威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/48xxx/CVE-2022-48944.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
sched: Fix yet more sched_fork() races
|
||||
|
||||
Where commit 4ef0c5c6b5ba ("kernel/sched: Fix sched_fork() access an
|
||||
invalid sched_task_group") fixed a fork race vs cgroup, it opened up a
|
||||
race vs syscalls by not placing the task on the runqueue before it
|
||||
gets exposed through the pidhash.
|
||||
|
||||
Commit 13765de8148f ("sched/fair: Fix fault in reweight_entity") is
|
||||
trying to fix a single instance of this, instead fix the whole class
|
||||
of issues, effectively reverting this commit.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
该 CVE 描述中提到 `sched_fork()` 函数中的竞争条件问题，并且明确提到了 `cgroup`（控制组）。因此，此漏洞与 cgroup 相关，而 cgroup 是容器技术（如 Docker）实现资源隔离的重要组成部分。所以，该 CVE 与容器和隔离机制有一定关联。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
该漏洞涉及 `sched_fork()` 函数的竞争条件问题，可能导致任务在被加入运行队列之前通过 `pidhash` 暴露出来。这种问题可能会影响调度器的行为，进而可能导致任务分配或资源管理的异常。由于 `cgroup` 是容器资源限制的核心机制，如果该漏洞被利用，可能会导致容器逃逸或影响宿主机的资源分配，从而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
根据以上分析，该 CVE 信息满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/48xxx/CVE-2022-48988.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
memcg: fix possible use-after-free in memcg_write_event_control()
|
||||
|
||||
memcg_write_event_control() accesses the dentry->d_name of the specified
|
||||
control fd to route the write call. As a cgroup interface file can't be
|
||||
renamed, it's safe to access d_name as long as the specified file is a
|
||||
regular cgroup file. Also, as these cgroup interface files can't be
|
||||
removed before the directory, it's safe to access the parent too.
|
||||
|
||||
Prior to 347c4a874710 ("memcg: remove cgroup_event->cft"), there was a
|
||||
call to __file_cft() which verified that the specified file is a regular
|
||||
cgroupfs file before further accesses. The cftype pointer returned from
|
||||
__file_cft() was no longer necessary and the commit inadvertently dropped
|
||||
the file type check with it allowing any file to slip through. With the
|
||||
invarients broken, the d_name and parent accesses can now race against
|
||||
renames and removals of arbitrary files and cause use-after-free's.
|
||||
|
||||
Fix the bug by resurrecting the file type check in __file_cft(). Now that
|
||||
cgroupfs is implemented through kernfs, checking the file operations needs
|
||||
to go through a layer of indirection. Instead, let's check the superblock
|
||||
and dentry type.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 cgroup 相关。问题出现在 `memcg_write_event_control()` 函数中，该函数用于处理 cgroup 的内存控制功能。具体来说，问题涉及对 cgroup 接口文件的操作，包括文件名访问 (`dentry->d_name`) 和父目录访问。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
可能会。由于该漏洞允许任意文件通过检查，并可能导致竞争条件（race condition），从而引发 use-after-free 问题。如果攻击者能够利用此漏洞，在容器环境中可能会影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。例如，use-after-free 漏洞可能会被利用来执行任意代码或导致系统崩溃。虽然 cgroup 本身主要用于资源限制和隔离，但这种类型的漏洞可能会破坏隔离机制，进而影响整个系统的稳定性或安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，基于以上分析，该 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/49xxx/CVE-2022-49266.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
block: fix rq-qos breakage from skipping rq_qos_done_bio()
|
||||
|
||||
a647a524a467 ("block: don't call rq_qos_ops->done_bio if the bio isn't
|
||||
tracked") made bio_endio() skip rq_qos_done_bio() if BIO_TRACKED is not set.
|
||||
While this fixed a potential oops, it also broke blk-iocost by skipping the
|
||||
done_bio callback for merged bios.
|
||||
|
||||
Before, whether a bio goes through rq_qos_throttle() or rq_qos_merge(),
|
||||
rq_qos_done_bio() would be called on the bio on completion with BIO_TRACKED
|
||||
distinguishing the former from the latter. rq_qos_done_bio() is not called
|
||||
for bios which wenth through rq_qos_merge(). This royally confuses
|
||||
blk-iocost as the merged bios never finish and are considered perpetually
|
||||
in-flight.
|
||||
|
||||
One reliably reproducible failure mode is an intermediate cgroup geting
|
||||
stuck active preventing its children from being activated due to the
|
||||
leaf-only rule, leading to loss of control. The following is from
|
||||
resctl-bench protection scenario which emulates isolating a web server like
|
||||
workload from a memory bomb run on an iocost configuration which should
|
||||
yield a reasonable level of protection.
|
||||
|
||||
# cat /sys/block/nvme2n1/device/model
|
||||
Samsung SSD 970 PRO 512GB
|
||||
# cat /sys/fs/cgroup/io.cost.model
|
||||
259:0 ctrl=user model=linear rbps=834913556 rseqiops=93622 rrandiops=102913 wbps=618985353 wseqiops=72325 wrandiops=71025
|
||||
# cat /sys/fs/cgroup/io.cost.qos
|
||||
259:0 enable=1 ctrl=user rpct=95.00 rlat=18776 wpct=95.00 wlat=8897 min=60.00 max=100.00
|
||||
# resctl-bench -m 29.6G -r out.json run protection::scenario=mem-hog,loops=1
|
||||
...
|
||||
Memory Hog Summary
|
||||
==================
|
||||
|
||||
IO Latency: R p50=242u:336u/2.5m p90=794u:1.4m/7.5m p99=2.7m:8.0m/62.5m max=8.0m:36.4m/350m
|
||||
W p50=221u:323u/1.5m p90=709u:1.2m/5.5m p99=1.5m:2.5m/9.5m max=6.9m:35.9m/350m
|
||||
|
||||
Isolation and Request Latency Impact Distributions:
|
||||
|
||||
min p01 p05 p10 p25 p50 p75 p90 p95 p99 max mean stdev
|
||||
isol% 15.90 15.90 15.90 40.05 57.24 59.07 60.01 74.63 74.63 90.35 90.35 58.12 15.82
|
||||
lat-imp% 0 0 0 0 0 4.55 14.68 15.54 233.5 548.1 548.1 53.88 143.6
|
||||
|
||||
Result: isol=58.12:15.82% lat_imp=53.88%:143.6 work_csv=100.0% missing=3.96%
|
||||
|
||||
The isolation result of 58.12% is close to what this device would show
|
||||
without any IO control.
|
||||
|
||||
Fix it by introducing a new flag BIO_QOS_MERGED to mark merged bios and
|
||||
calling rq_qos_done_bio() on them too. For consistency and clarity, rename
|
||||
BIO_TRACKED to BIO_QOS_THROTTLED. The flag checks are moved into
|
||||
rq_qos_done_bio() so that it's next to the code paths that set the flags.
|
||||
|
||||
With the patch applied, the above same benchmark shows:
|
||||
|
||||
# resctl-bench -m 29.6G -r out.json run protection::scenario=mem-hog,loops=1
|
||||
...
|
||||
Memory Hog Summary
|
||||
==================
|
||||
|
||||
IO Latency: R p50=123u:84.4u/985u p90=322u:256u/2.5m p99=1.6m:1.4m/9.5m max=11.1m:36.0m/350m
|
||||
W p50=429u:274u/995u p90=1.7m:1.3m/4.5m p99=3.4m:2.7m/11.5m max=7.9m:5.9m/26.5m
|
||||
|
||||
Isolation and Request Latency Impact Distributions:
|
||||
|
||||
min p01 p05 p10 p25 p50 p75 p90 p95 p99 max mean stdev
|
||||
isol% 84.91 84.91 89.51 90.73 92.31 94.49 96.36 98.04 98.71 100.0 100.0 94.42 2.81
|
||||
lat-imp% 0 0 0 0 0 2.81 5.73 11.11 13.92 17.53 22.61 4.10 4.68
|
||||
|
||||
Result: isol=94.42:2.81% lat_imp=4.10%:4.68 work_csv=58.34% missing=0%
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，这个CVE信息与`cgroup`和隔离相关。具体来说，问题涉及到Linux内核块设备子系统中的`blk-iocost`功能，该功能用于基于IO成本模型对IO进行控制和调度。问题的核心是由于`rq_qos_done_bio()`调用被跳过，导致合并的bio（block IO）在`blk-iocost`中被视为永久处于飞行状态，从而影响了cgroup的正常行为。这可能会导致中间cgroup卡住，无法正确激活其子cgroup，从而破坏了资源隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
有可能。由于该漏洞影响的是`blk-iocost`的正确性，而`blk-iocost`是Linux cgroup v2的一部分，通常用于容器环境下的IO资源分配和隔离。如果某个容器的IO操作触发了这个问题，可能导致其cgroup状态异常，进而影响同一宿主机上其他容器的资源分配或隔离效果。此外，宿主机本身的IO资源管理也可能受到影响。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/49xxx/CVE-2022-49394.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
blk-iolatency: Fix inflight count imbalances and IO hangs on offline
|
||||
|
||||
iolatency needs to track the number of inflight IOs per cgroup. As this
|
||||
tracking can be expensive, it is disabled when no cgroup has iolatency
|
||||
configured for the device. To ensure that the inflight counters stay
|
||||
balanced, iolatency_set_limit() freezes the request_queue while manipulating
|
||||
the enabled counter, which ensures that no IO is in flight and thus all
|
||||
counters are zero.
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately, iolatency_set_limit() isn't the only place where the enabled
|
||||
counter is manipulated. iolatency_pd_offline() can also dec the counter and
|
||||
trigger disabling. As this disabling happens without freezing the q, this
|
||||
can easily happen while some IOs are in flight and thus leak the counts.
|
||||
|
||||
This can be easily demonstrated by turning on iolatency on an one empty
|
||||
cgroup while IOs are in flight in other cgroups and then removing the
|
||||
cgroup. Note that iolatency shouldn't have been enabled elsewhere in the
|
||||
system to ensure that removing the cgroup disables iolatency for the whole
|
||||
device.
|
||||
|
||||
The following keeps flipping on and off iolatency on sda:
|
||||
|
||||
echo +io > /sys/fs/cgroup/cgroup.subtree_control
|
||||
while true; do
|
||||
mkdir -p /sys/fs/cgroup/test
|
||||
echo '8:0 target=100000' > /sys/fs/cgroup/test/io.latency
|
||||
sleep 1
|
||||
rmdir /sys/fs/cgroup/test
|
||||
sleep 1
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
and there's concurrent fio generating direct rand reads:
|
||||
|
||||
fio --name test --filename=/dev/sda --direct=1 --rw=randread \
|
||||
--runtime=600 --time_based --iodepth=256 --numjobs=4 --bs=4k
|
||||
|
||||
while monitoring with the following drgn script:
|
||||
|
||||
while True:
|
||||
for css in css_for_each_descendant_pre(prog['blkcg_root'].css.address_of_()):
|
||||
for pos in hlist_for_each(container_of(css, 'struct blkcg', 'css').blkg_list):
|
||||
blkg = container_of(pos, 'struct blkcg_gq', 'blkcg_node')
|
||||
pd = blkg.pd[prog['blkcg_policy_iolatency'].plid]
|
||||
if pd.value_() == 0:
|
||||
continue
|
||||
iolat = container_of(pd, 'struct iolatency_grp', 'pd')
|
||||
inflight = iolat.rq_wait.inflight.counter.value_()
|
||||
if inflight:
|
||||
print(f'inflight={inflight} {disk_name(blkg.q.disk).decode("utf-8")} '
|
||||
f'{cgroup_path(css.cgroup).decode("utf-8")}')
|
||||
time.sleep(1)
|
||||
|
||||
The monitoring output looks like the following:
|
||||
|
||||
inflight=1 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=1 sda /user.slice
|
||||
...
|
||||
inflight=14 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=13 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=17 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=15 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=18 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=17 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=20 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=19 sda /user.slice <- fio stopped, inflight stuck at 19
|
||||
inflight=19 sda /user.slice
|
||||
inflight=19 sda /user.slice
|
||||
|
||||
If a cgroup with stuck inflight ends up getting throttled, the throttled IOs
|
||||
will never get issued as there's no completion event to wake it up leading
|
||||
to an indefinite hang.
|
||||
|
||||
This patch fixes the bug by unifying enable handling into a work item which
|
||||
is automatically kicked off from iolatency_set_min_lat_nsec() which is
|
||||
called from both iolatency_set_limit() and iolatency_pd_offline() paths.
|
||||
Punting to a work item is necessary as iolatency_pd_offline() is called
|
||||
under spinlocks while freezing a request_queue requires a sleepable context.
|
||||
|
||||
This also simplifies the code reducing LOC sans the comments and avoids the
|
||||
unnecessary freezes which were happening whenever a cgroup's latency target
|
||||
is newly set or cleared.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 cgroup 直接相关。漏洞描述中提到 `iolatency` 是基于 cgroup 的机制，用于跟踪每个 cgroup 的 inflight IO 数量。此外，问题的核心在于 `iolatency_pd_offline()` 和 `iolatency_set_limit()` 操控 enabled 计数器时未正确同步，导致 inflight 计数不平衡。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
可能会。由于该漏洞涉及 cgroup 的 IO 调度机制，如果一个容器的 cgroup 配置受到影响（例如 inflight 计数不平衡），可能会导致该容器的 IO 被错误地限制或挂起，从而间接影响宿主机或其他容器的正常运行。特别是当某个 cgroup 的 inflight 计数卡住时，可能导致 IO 挂起，进一步影响整个系统的稳定性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/49xxx/CVE-2022-49411.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
bfq: Make sure bfqg for which we are queueing requests is online
|
||||
|
||||
Bios queued into BFQ IO scheduler can be associated with a cgroup that
|
||||
was already offlined. This may then cause insertion of this bfq_group
|
||||
into a service tree. But this bfq_group will get freed as soon as last
|
||||
bio associated with it is completed leading to use after free issues for
|
||||
service tree users. Fix the problem by making sure we always operate on
|
||||
online bfq_group. If the bfq_group associated with the bio is not
|
||||
online, we pick the first online parent.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 cgroup 相关。问题描述中提到 BFQ I/O 调度器中的 `bfq_group` 可能与一个已经被 offlined 的 cgroup 关联，这表明问题涉及到 cgroup 的生命周期管理。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
这个漏洞可能导致 use-after-free 问题，从而可能引发系统不稳定或崩溃。虽然问题本身直接涉及的是 cgroup 和 I/O 调度器，但如果容器使用了受影响的 BFQ 调度器，并且其 cgroup 被 offlined，可能会导致容器的 I/O 操作影响到宿主机或其他容器的稳定性。因此，这种漏洞在某些情况下可能会影响容器隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 该 CVE 信息满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/49xxx/CVE-2022-49412.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
bfq: Avoid merging queues with different parents
|
||||
|
||||
It can happen that the parent of a bfqq changes between the moment we
|
||||
decide two queues are worth to merge (and set bic->stable_merge_bfqq)
|
||||
and the moment bfq_setup_merge() is called. This can happen e.g. because
|
||||
the process submitted IO for a different cgroup and thus bfqq got
|
||||
reparented. It can even happen that the bfqq we are merging with has
|
||||
parent cgroup that is already offline and going to be destroyed in which
|
||||
case the merge can lead to use-after-free issues such as:
|
||||
|
||||
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50
|
||||
Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800693c0c0 by task runc:[2:INIT]/10544
|
||||
|
||||
CPU: 0 PID: 10544 Comm: runc:[2:INIT] Tainted: G E 5.15.2-0.g5fb85fd-default #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed (unreleased) f1f3b891c72369aebecd2e43e4641a6358867c70
|
||||
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014
|
||||
Call Trace:
|
||||
<IRQ>
|
||||
dump_stack_lvl+0x46/0x5a
|
||||
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1f/0x140
|
||||
? __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50
|
||||
kasan_report.cold+0x7f/0x11b
|
||||
? __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50
|
||||
__bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50
|
||||
? update_curr+0x32f/0x5d0
|
||||
bfq_deactivate_entity+0xa0/0x1d0
|
||||
bfq_del_bfqq_busy+0x28a/0x420
|
||||
? resched_curr+0x116/0x1d0
|
||||
? bfq_requeue_bfqq+0x70/0x70
|
||||
? check_preempt_wakeup+0x52b/0xbc0
|
||||
__bfq_bfqq_expire+0x1a2/0x270
|
||||
bfq_bfqq_expire+0xd16/0x2160
|
||||
? try_to_wake_up+0x4ee/0x1260
|
||||
? bfq_end_wr_async_queues+0xe0/0xe0
|
||||
? _raw_write_unlock_bh+0x60/0x60
|
||||
? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x81/0xe0
|
||||
bfq_idle_slice_timer+0x109/0x280
|
||||
? bfq_dispatch_request+0x4870/0x4870
|
||||
__hrtimer_run_queues+0x37d/0x700
|
||||
? enqueue_hrtimer+0x1b0/0x1b0
|
||||
? kvm_clock_get_cycles+0xd/0x10
|
||||
? ktime_get_update_offsets_now+0x6f/0x280
|
||||
hrtimer_interrupt+0x2c8/0x740
|
||||
|
||||
Fix the problem by checking that the parent of the two bfqqs we are
|
||||
merging in bfq_setup_merge() is the same.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞与 cgroup 相关。具体来说，问题出现在 I/O 调度器 BFQ（Budget Fair Queuing）中，涉及到不同 cgroup 的队列合并操作。当一个进程为不同的 cgroup 提交 I/O 请求时，可能导致队列被重新分配父级 cgroup，从而引发潜在的使用后释放（use-after-free）问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会影响容器的隔离性。由于 cgroup 是容器资源隔离的核心机制之一，BFQ 队列的错误合并可能导致对已销毁 cgroup 的引用，进而引发 use-after-free 问题。这可能会导致容器逃逸或影响宿主机的稳定性，尤其是在多租户环境中，不同容器共享同一宿主机的情况下。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/49xxx/CVE-2022-49413.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
bfq: Update cgroup information before merging bio
|
||||
|
||||
When the process is migrated to a different cgroup (or in case of
|
||||
writeback just starts submitting bios associated with a different
|
||||
cgroup) bfq_merge_bio() can operate with stale cgroup information in
|
||||
bic. Thus the bio can be merged to a request from a different cgroup or
|
||||
it can result in merging of bfqqs for different cgroups or bfqqs of
|
||||
already dead cgroups and causing possible use-after-free issues. Fix the
|
||||
problem by updating cgroup information in bfq_merge_bio().
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关。
|
||||
分析：漏洞描述中明确提到 cgroup（控制组）的概念，并且问题出现在当进程迁移到不同的 cgroup 或者与不同 cgroup 关联的 bio 提交时，可能导致错误的合并操作。这表明问题直接涉及 cgroup 的管理。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 不会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
分析：虽然该漏洞涉及 cgroup，但其影响主要集中在 I/O 调度器 BFQ（Budget Fair Queuing）的实现上。具体来说，问题是由于过时的 cgroup 信息导致 bio 合并错误，可能引发 use-after-free 问题。然而，这种问题的影响范围限制在内核的 I/O 调度逻辑中，不会直接影响容器之间的隔离性或对宿主机的安全性造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
结论：满足条件 1，但不满足条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/49xxx/CVE-2022-49567.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
mm/mempolicy: fix uninit-value in mpol_rebind_policy()
|
||||
|
||||
mpol_set_nodemask()(mm/mempolicy.c) does not set up nodemask when
|
||||
pol->mode is MPOL_LOCAL. Check pol->mode before access
|
||||
pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed in mpol_rebind_policy()(mm/mempolicy.c).
|
||||
|
||||
BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in mpol_rebind_policy mm/mempolicy.c:352 [inline]
|
||||
BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in mpol_rebind_task+0x2ac/0x2c0 mm/mempolicy.c:368
|
||||
mpol_rebind_policy mm/mempolicy.c:352 [inline]
|
||||
mpol_rebind_task+0x2ac/0x2c0 mm/mempolicy.c:368
|
||||
cpuset_change_task_nodemask kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:1711 [inline]
|
||||
cpuset_attach+0x787/0x15e0 kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:2278
|
||||
cgroup_migrate_execute+0x1023/0x1d20 kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c:2515
|
||||
cgroup_migrate kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c:2771 [inline]
|
||||
cgroup_attach_task+0x540/0x8b0 kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c:2804
|
||||
__cgroup1_procs_write+0x5cc/0x7a0 kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c:520
|
||||
cgroup1_tasks_write+0x94/0xb0 kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c:539
|
||||
cgroup_file_write+0x4c2/0x9e0 kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c:3852
|
||||
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x66a/0x9f0 fs/kernfs/file.c:296
|
||||
call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2162 [inline]
|
||||
new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:503 [inline]
|
||||
vfs_write+0x1318/0x2030 fs/read_write.c:590
|
||||
ksys_write+0x28b/0x510 fs/read_write.c:643
|
||||
__do_sys_write fs/read_write.c:655 [inline]
|
||||
__se_sys_write fs/read_write.c:652 [inline]
|
||||
__x64_sys_write+0xdb/0x120 fs/read_write.c:652
|
||||
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:51 [inline]
|
||||
do_syscall_64+0x54/0xd0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:82
|
||||
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
|
||||
|
||||
Uninit was created at:
|
||||
slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slab.h:524 [inline]
|
||||
slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3251 [inline]
|
||||
slab_alloc mm/slub.c:3259 [inline]
|
||||
kmem_cache_alloc+0x902/0x11c0 mm/slub.c:3264
|
||||
mpol_new mm/mempolicy.c:293 [inline]
|
||||
do_set_mempolicy+0x421/0xb70 mm/mempolicy.c:853
|
||||
kernel_set_mempolicy mm/mempolicy.c:1504 [inline]
|
||||
__do_sys_set_mempolicy mm/mempolicy.c:1510 [inline]
|
||||
__se_sys_set_mempolicy+0x44c/0xb60 mm/mempolicy.c:1507
|
||||
__x64_sys_set_mempolicy+0xd8/0x110 mm/mempolicy.c:1507
|
||||
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:51 [inline]
|
||||
do_syscall_64+0x54/0xd0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:82
|
||||
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
|
||||
|
||||
KMSAN: uninit-value in mpol_rebind_task (2)
|
||||
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=d6eb90f952c2a5de9ea718a1b873c55cb13b59dc
|
||||
|
||||
This patch seems to fix below bug too.
|
||||
KMSAN: uninit-value in mpol_rebind_mm (2)
|
||||
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=f2fecd0d7013f54ec4162f60743a2b28df40926b
|
||||
|
||||
The uninit-value is pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed in mpol_rebind_policy().
|
||||
When syzkaller reproducer runs to the beginning of mpol_new(),
|
||||
|
||||
mpol_new() mm/mempolicy.c
|
||||
do_mbind() mm/mempolicy.c
|
||||
kernel_mbind() mm/mempolicy.c
|
||||
|
||||
`mode` is 1(MPOL_PREFERRED), nodes_empty(*nodes) is `true` and `flags`
|
||||
is 0. Then
|
||||
|
||||
mode = MPOL_LOCAL;
|
||||
...
|
||||
policy->mode = mode;
|
||||
policy->flags = flags;
|
||||
|
||||
will be executed. So in mpol_set_nodemask(),
|
||||
|
||||
mpol_set_nodemask() mm/mempolicy.c
|
||||
do_mbind()
|
||||
kernel_mbind()
|
||||
|
||||
pol->mode is 4 (MPOL_LOCAL), that `nodemask` in `pol` is not initialized,
|
||||
which will be accessed in mpol_rebind_policy().
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 cgroup 相关。在调用栈中可以看到 `cpuset_change_task_nodemask` 和 `cpuset_attach` 函数，这些函数属于 Linux 内核中的 cgroup 子系统（具体是 cpuset 控制组）。Cgroup 是容器技术（如 Docker）实现资源隔离的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
从描述来看，该漏洞涉及未初始化的值 (`uninit-value`) 在内存策略 (`mempolicy`) 中被访问。这种问题可能会导致内核崩溃或其他不可预测的行为。如果攻击者能够触发此漏洞，可能会影响整个系统的稳定性，包括宿主机和其他容器的正常运行。因此，该漏洞有可能被利用来破坏容器之间的隔离性，甚至影响宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件 1 和 2 均满足，因此需要返回分析结果，而不是 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2022/49xxx/CVE-2022-49647.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
cgroup: Use separate src/dst nodes when preloading css_sets for migration
|
||||
|
||||
Each cset (css_set) is pinned by its tasks. When we're moving tasks around
|
||||
across csets for a migration, we need to hold the source and destination
|
||||
csets to ensure that they don't go away while we're moving tasks about. This
|
||||
is done by linking cset->mg_preload_node on either the
|
||||
mgctx->preloaded_src_csets or mgctx->preloaded_dst_csets list. Using the
|
||||
same cset->mg_preload_node for both the src and dst lists was deemed okay as
|
||||
a cset can't be both the source and destination at the same time.
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately, this overloading becomes problematic when multiple tasks are
|
||||
involved in a migration and some of them are identity noop migrations while
|
||||
others are actually moving across cgroups. For example, this can happen with
|
||||
the following sequence on cgroup1:
|
||||
|
||||
#1> mkdir -p /sys/fs/cgroup/misc/a/b
|
||||
#2> echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/misc/a/cgroup.procs
|
||||
#3> RUN_A_COMMAND_WHICH_CREATES_MULTIPLE_THREADS &
|
||||
#4> PID=$!
|
||||
#5> echo $PID > /sys/fs/cgroup/misc/a/b/tasks
|
||||
#6> echo $PID > /sys/fs/cgroup/misc/a/cgroup.procs
|
||||
|
||||
the process including the group leader back into a. In this final migration,
|
||||
non-leader threads would be doing identity migration while the group leader
|
||||
is doing an actual one.
|
||||
|
||||
After #3, let's say the whole process was in cset A, and that after #4, the
|
||||
leader moves to cset B. Then, during #6, the following happens:
|
||||
|
||||
1. cgroup_migrate_add_src() is called on B for the leader.
|
||||
|
||||
2. cgroup_migrate_add_src() is called on A for the other threads.
|
||||
|
||||
3. cgroup_migrate_prepare_dst() is called. It scans the src list.
|
||||
|
||||
4. It notices that B wants to migrate to A, so it tries to A to the dst
|
||||
list but realizes that its ->mg_preload_node is already busy.
|
||||
|
||||
5. and then it notices A wants to migrate to A as it's an identity
|
||||
migration, it culls it by list_del_init()'ing its ->mg_preload_node and
|
||||
putting references accordingly.
|
||||
|
||||
6. The rest of migration takes place with B on the src list but nothing on
|
||||
the dst list.
|
||||
|
||||
This means that A isn't held while migration is in progress. If all tasks
|
||||
leave A before the migration finishes and the incoming task pins it, the
|
||||
cset will be destroyed leading to use-after-free.
|
||||
|
||||
This is caused by overloading cset->mg_preload_node for both src and dst
|
||||
preload lists. We wanted to exclude the cset from the src list but ended up
|
||||
inadvertently excluding it from the dst list too.
|
||||
|
||||
This patch fixes the issue by separating out cset->mg_preload_node into
|
||||
->mg_src_preload_node and ->mg_dst_preload_node, so that the src and dst
|
||||
preloadings don't interfere with each other.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确与 cgroup（控制组）相关。cgroup 是 Linux 内核中的一个特性，用于限制、记录和隔离进程组的资源（如 CPU、内存、磁盘 I/O 等）。此漏洞涉及 cgroup 的迁移逻辑，特别是 css_set（control group subsystem set）在任务迁移时的处理问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
可能会。由于此漏洞涉及到 cgroup 的任务迁移逻辑，而 cgroup 是容器技术（如 Docker、Kubernetes 等）实现资源隔离的核心机制之一，因此如果漏洞被利用，可能会导致以下问题：
|
||||
- 在多租户环境中，一个容器内的任务迁移操作可能会影响其他容器的任务迁移逻辑，进而可能导致资源分配错误或隔离失效。
|
||||
- 如果宿主机上的 cgroup 配置受到影响，可能会间接影响到宿主机的稳定性或安全性，例如导致资源竞争或内核崩溃。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
根据上述分析，条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
843
general_result/23.log
Normal file
843
general_result/23.log
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,843 @@
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/0xxx/CVE-2023-0627.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop 4.11.x allows --no-windows-containers flag bypass via IPC response spoofing which may lead to Local Privilege Escalation (LPE).This issue affects Docker Desktop: 4.11.X.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器技术相关。具体来说，它涉及 Docker Desktop 的 Windows 容器功能，并通过 IPC（进程间通信）响应伪造绕过 `--no-windows-containers` 标志。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致本地权限提升 (LPE)，从而允许攻击者通过 IPC 响应伪造绕过限制，进而影响宿主机的安全性。这种情况下，攻击者可能利用该漏洞突破容器隔离，对宿主机或其他容器造成潜在威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/0xxx/CVE-2023-0628.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop before 4.17.0 allows an attacker to execute an arbitrary command inside a Dev Environments container during initialization by tricking a user to open a crafted malicious docker-desktop:// URL.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到了Docker Desktop和Dev Environments容器，这表明它与容器技术相关。此外，问题涉及在容器初始化期间执行任意命令，这也与容器的隔离性有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
有可能。通过利用此漏洞，攻击者可以在Dev Environments容器中执行任意命令。如果该容器没有正确配置隔离机制（例如共享了宿主机的命名空间或资源），则可能会进一步影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 满足条件1和条件2，需要关注此漏洞对容器隔离性和宿主机安全的影响。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/0xxx/CVE-2023-0629.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop before 4.17.0 allows an unprivileged user to bypass Enhanced Container Isolation (ECI) restrictions by setting the Docker host to docker.raw.sock, or npipe:////.pipe/docker_engine_linux on Windows, via the -H (--host) CLI flag or the DOCKER_HOST environment variable and launch containers without the additional hardening features provided by ECI. This would not affect already running containers, nor containers launched through the usual approach (without Docker's raw socket).
|
||||
|
||||
The affected functionality is available for Docker Business customers only and assumes an environment where users are not granted local root or Administrator privileges.
|
||||
This issue has been fixed in Docker Desktop 4.17.0.
|
||||
|
||||
Affected Docker Desktop versions: from 4.13.0 before 4.17.0.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 与容器隔离相关。它描述了 Docker Desktop 的 Enhanced Container Isolation (ECI) 功能存在漏洞，允许未授权用户通过特定方式绕过 ECI 提供的额外隔离和加固功能。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能会导致容器隔离失效。攻击者可以通过设置 `docker.raw.sock` 或类似方法绕过 ECI 的限制，从而可能以较低的安全性启动容器。这可能间接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性，因为缺少 ECI 提供的加固措施可能导致更高的风险暴露。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/0xxx/CVE-2023-0923.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in the Kubernetes service for notebooks in RHODS, where it does not prevent pods from other namespaces and applications from making requests to the Jupyter API. This flaw can lead to file content exposure and other issues.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。问题在于 Kubernetes 服务未能正确限制其他命名空间中的 Pods 对 Jupyter API 的访问，这表明跨命名空间的隔离存在漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
这个漏洞可能会导致一个命名空间中的容器通过未受限制的 API 请求访问另一个命名空间中容器的数据（如文件内容）。因此，虽然它不会直接影响宿主机，但它确实可能导致一个容器或 Pod 泄露敏感信息给其他容器或 Pod。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/1xxx/CVE-2023-1174.json
|
||||
This vulnerability exposes a network port in minikube running on macOS with Docker driver that could enable unexpected remote access to the minikube container.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞与容器和隔离相关。描述中提到的是 minikube 在 macOS 上使用 Docker 驱动时暴露出一个网络端口，这直接影响到 minikube 容器的网络隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，可能会产生影响。由于网络端口被意外暴露，攻击者可能通过此端口访问 minikube 容器，并进一步利用该容器作为跳板，尝试访问同一宿主机上的其他容器或直接攻击宿主机。这种行为破坏了容器之间的隔离性，也可能对宿主机的安全性构成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/1xxx/CVE-2023-1555.json
|
||||
An issue has been discovered in GitLab affecting all versions starting from 15.2 before 16.1.5, all versions starting from 16.2 before 16.2.5, all versions starting from 16.3 before 16.3.1. A namespace-level banned user can access the API.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
该 CVE 描述提到“namespace-level banned user can access the API”，表明问题与 namespace 相关。然而，这里的 namespace 更像是 GitLab 内部的逻辑概念（例如项目或组的命名空间），而不是操作系统级别的 namespace（如 Linux namespace 用于容器隔离）。因此，严格来说，这并不直接涉及操作系统级别的 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
根据描述，这个问题是关于 GitLab 的一个权限管理漏洞，允许被禁用的用户在某个命名空间级别访问 API。这主要是应用层面上的安全问题，与容器运行时的隔离性无关，也不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均不满足，因此返回：
|
||||
**N/A**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/1xxx/CVE-2023-1636.json
|
||||
A vulnerability was found in OpenStack Barbican containers. This vulnerability is only applicable to deployments that utilize an all-in-one configuration. Barbican containers share the same CGROUP, USER, and NET namespace with the host system and other OpenStack services. If any service is compromised, it could gain access to the data transmitted to and from Barbican.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息明确提到Barbican容器与主机系统以及其他OpenStack服务共享相同的CGROUP、USER和NET namespace。这表明该问题与容器的隔离机制直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，由于Barbican容器与主机系统和其他OpenStack服务共享相同的CGROUP、USER和NET namespace，一旦某个服务被攻破，攻击者可能能够访问传输到和来自Barbican的数据。这种共享配置可能导致安全边界被突破，从而使攻击者能够影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
由于条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/20xxx/CVE-2023-20235.json
|
||||
A vulnerability in the on-device application development workflow feature for the Cisco IOx application hosting infrastructure in Cisco IOS XE Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to access the underlying operating system as the root user.
|
||||
|
||||
This vulnerability exists because Docker containers with the privileged runtime option are not blocked when they are in application development mode. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by using the Docker CLI to access an affected device. The application development workflow is meant to be used only on development systems and not in production systems.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与容器和隔离相关。描述中提到Docker容器在启用`privileged`运行时选项时未被阻止，这直接影响了容器的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器突破隔离，访问底层操作系统并获取root权限。具体来说，攻击者可以通过Docker CLI利用此漏洞，在应用开发模式下访问宿主机的操作系统，从而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件1和条件2均满足，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/22xxx/CVE-2023-22495.json
|
||||
Izanami is a shared configuration service well-suited for micro-service architecture implementation. Attackers can bypass the authentication in this application when deployed using the official Docker image. Because a hard coded secret is used to sign the authentication token (JWT), an attacker could compromise another instance of Izanami. This issue has been patched in version 1.11.0.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息提到 Izanami 应用程序在使用官方 Docker 镜像部署时存在安全问题。这表明它与容器化环境（如 Docker）相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞本身是由于硬编码的秘密密钥（JWT 签名）导致的认证绕过问题。虽然它会影响同一个容器中的 Izanami 实例，但没有直接证据表明此漏洞会突破容器隔离机制，进而影响其他容器或宿主机。因此，它不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/23xxx/CVE-2023-23468.json
|
||||
IBM Robotic Process Automation for Cloud Pak 21.0.1 through 21.0.7.3 and 23.0.0 through 23.0.3 is vulnerable to insufficient security configuration which may allow creation of namespaces within a cluster. IBM X-Force ID: 244500.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE提到了“creation of namespaces within a cluster”，明确涉及到了namespace的概念，而namespace是容器隔离机制中的一个核心组成部分。因此，该漏洞与namespace以及容器隔离相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该描述提到“insufficient security configuration which may allow creation of namespaces within a cluster”，即由于安全配置不足，可能允许在集群内创建新的namespace。如果攻击者能够利用此漏洞创建新的namespace，可能会绕过现有的隔离机制，从而对同一宿主机上的其他容器或宿主机本身造成潜在影响。因此，该漏洞有可能导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：该CVE满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/23xxx/CVE-2023-23586.json
|
||||
Due to a vulnerability in the io_uring subsystem, it is possible to leak kernel memory information to the user process. timens_install calls current_is_single_threaded to determine if the current process is single-threaded, but this call does not consider io_uring's io_worker threads, thus it is possible to insert a time namespace's vvar page to process's memory space via a page fault. When this time namespace is destroyed, the vvar page is also freed, but not removed from the process' memory, and a next page allocated by the kernel will be still available from the user-space process and can leak memory contents via this (read-only) use-after-free vulnerability. We recommend upgrading past version 5.10.161 or commit 788d0824269bef539fe31a785b1517882eafed93 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/io_uring
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞与 namespace 相关。具体来说，它涉及到时间命名空间（time namespace）。时间命名空间是 Linux 内核中的一种隔离机制，用于为不同的进程提供独立的时间视图。此漏洞利用了时间命名空间的 vvar 页面在进程内存中的处理不当，导致内核内存泄漏。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能会影响容器的隔离性。由于时间命名空间是容器隔离机制的一部分，此漏洞可能导致容器内的进程访问到宿主机或其他容器的敏感内核数据。这会破坏容器之间的隔离，并可能进一步被利用来攻击宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/25xxx/CVE-2023-25173.json
|
||||
containerd is an open source container runtime. A bug was found in containerd prior to versions 1.6.18 and 1.5.18 where supplementary groups are not set up properly inside a container. If an attacker has direct access to a container and manipulates their supplementary group access, they may be able to use supplementary group access to bypass primary group restrictions in some cases, potentially gaining access to sensitive information or gaining the ability to execute code in that container. Downstream applications that use the containerd client library may be affected as well.
|
||||
|
||||
This bug has been fixed in containerd v1.6.18 and v.1.5.18. Users should update to these versions and recreate containers to resolve this issue. Users who rely on a downstream application that uses containerd's client library should check that application for a separate advisory and instructions. As a workaround, ensure that the `"USER $USERNAME"` Dockerfile instruction is not used. Instead, set the container entrypoint to a value similar to `ENTRYPOINT ["su", "-", "user"]` to allow `su` to properly set up supplementary groups.
|
||||
analysis: ### 分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器相关。具体来说，问题出现在 `containerd` 中，这是一个开源的容器运行时工具。问题涉及容器内的补充组（supplementary groups）设置不正确，这可能会影响容器内的权限管理。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
从描述来看，该漏洞的影响范围仅限于受影响的容器内部。攻击者可以通过操纵补充组访问权限来绕过某些限制，但没有提到可以突破容器隔离机制，进而影响其他容器或宿主机。因此，该漏洞不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 最终结论：
|
||||
满足条件 1，但不满足条件 2，因此返回以下分析：
|
||||
|
||||
- **与容器相关：是**
|
||||
- **是否影响其他容器或宿主机：否**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/25xxx/CVE-2023-25809.json
|
||||
runc is a CLI tool for spawning and running containers according to the OCI specification. In affected versions it was found that rootless runc makes `/sys/fs/cgroup` writable in following conditons: 1. when runc is executed inside the user namespace, and the `config.json` does not specify the cgroup namespace to be unshared (e.g.., `(docker|podman|nerdctl) run --cgroupns=host`, with Rootless Docker/Podman/nerdctl) or 2. when runc is executed outside the user namespace, and `/sys` is mounted with `rbind, ro` (e.g., `runc spec --rootless`; this condition is very rare). A container may gain the write access to user-owned cgroup hierarchy `/sys/fs/cgroup/user.slice/...` on the host . Other users's cgroup hierarchies are not affected. Users are advised to upgrade to version 1.1.5. Users unable to upgrade may unshare the cgroup namespace (`(docker|podman|nerdctl) run --cgroupns=private)`. This is the default behavior of Docker/Podman/nerdctl on cgroup v2 hosts. or add `/sys/fs/cgroup` to `maskedPaths`.
|
||||
analysis: ### 分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到了 `runc` 工具在处理容器时的问题，特别是与 cgroup 和用户命名空间（user namespace）相关的配置。问题的核心在于 rootless runc 在特定条件下使得 `/sys/fs/cgroup` 可写，这直接影响了 cgroup 的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致容器获得对宿主机上用户拥有的 cgroup 层次结构（`/sys/fs/cgroup/user.slice/...`）的写访问权限。虽然其他用户的 cgroup 层次结构不受影响，但攻击者可能利用这一权限逃逸容器隔离环境，进而影响宿主机或其他依赖相同 cgroup 配置的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回以下分析内容：
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 漏洞分析总结：
|
||||
- **受影响组件**：`runc`（符合 OCI 规范的容器运行时工具）。
|
||||
- **问题描述**：在特定条件下，rootless runc 会使宿主机上的 `/sys/fs/cgroup` 可写，从而破坏 cgroup 的隔离性。
|
||||
- **影响范围**：
|
||||
- 容器可能获得对宿主机上用户拥有的 cgroup 层次结构的写访问权限。
|
||||
- 这种访问权限可能会被滥用以突破容器隔离，影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
- **修复建议**：
|
||||
- 升级到 `runc` 版本 1.1.5。
|
||||
- 如果无法升级，可以通过以下方式缓解：
|
||||
- 使用 `--cgroupns=private` 参数以单独隔离 cgroup 命名空间。
|
||||
- 将 `/sys/fs/cgroup` 添加到 `maskedPaths` 中以屏蔽其访问。
|
||||
|
||||
此漏洞直接涉及容器隔离机制，需及时修复以避免潜在的安全风险。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/26xxx/CVE-2023-26490.json
|
||||
mailcow is a dockerized email package, with multiple containers linked in one bridged network. The Sync Job feature - which can be made available to standard users by assigning them the necessary permission - suffers from a shell command injection. A malicious user can abuse this vulnerability to obtain shell access to the Docker container running dovecot. The imapsync Perl script implements all the necessary functionality for this feature, including the XOAUTH2 authentication mechanism. This code path creates a shell command to call openssl. However, since different parts of the specified user password are included without any validation, one can simply execute additional shell commands. Notably, the default ACL for a newly-created mailcow account does not include the necessary permission. The Issue has been fixed within the 2023-03 Update (March 3rd 2023). As a temporary workaround the Syncjob ACL can be removed from all mailbox users, preventing from creating or changing existing Syncjobs.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器相关。具体来说，mailcow 是一个基于 Docker 的电子邮件解决方案，涉及多个容器通过桥接网络连接在一起。漏洞影响的是运行 dovecot 的 Docker 容器。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
从描述来看，此漏洞允许恶意用户通过 Sync Job 特性执行命令注入，从而获得对运行 dovecot 的容器的 shell 访问权限。然而，攻击范围被限制在该特定容器内，因为没有提到突破容器隔离机制（例如逃逸到宿主机或其他容器）。因此，此漏洞不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机，除非攻击者进一步利用其他漏洞实现容器逃逸。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
- 满足条件 1（与容器相关）。
|
||||
- 不满足条件 2（不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机）。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/27xxx/CVE-2023-27290.json
|
||||
Docker based datastores for IBM Instana (IBM Observability with Instana 239-0 through 239-2, 241-0 through 241-2, and 243-0) do not currently require authentication. Due to this, an attacker within the network could access the datastores with read/write access. IBM X-Force ID: 248737.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与容器相关。问题描述中明确提到“Docker based datastores”，表明该漏洞涉及基于Docker的容器化数据存储。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞描述指出，IBM Instana的数据存储未启用身份验证，导致攻击者可以在网络内获得对这些数据存储的读写访问权限。虽然此问题主要影响数据存储的安全性，但它并不直接涉及容器间的隔离机制或对宿主机的直接影响。然而，如果攻击者利用此漏洞修改或破坏共享数据存储的内容，可能会间接影响依赖该数据存储的其他容器或服务。
|
||||
|
||||
综上所述，该CVE与容器相关，并可能通过数据存储的滥用对其他容器产生间接影响，但不直接破坏容器隔离或直接影响宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/27xxx/CVE-2023-27595.json
|
||||
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. In version 1.13.0, when Cilium is started, there is a short period when Cilium eBPF programs are not attached to the host. During this period, the host does not implement any of Cilium's featureset. This can cause disruption to newly established connections during this period due to the lack of Load Balancing, or can cause Network Policy bypass due to the lack of Network Policy enforcement during the window. This vulnerability impacts any Cilium-managed endpoints on the node (such as Kubernetes Pods), as well as the host network namespace (including Host Firewall). This vulnerability is fixed in Cilium 1.13.1 or later. Cilium releases 1.12.x, 1.11.x, and earlier are not affected. There are no known workarounds.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 与容器和隔离相关。Cilium 是一个用于容器网络和安全的解决方案，其主要功能是通过 eBPF 程序实现对容器（如 Kubernetes Pods）和主机网络命名空间的管理。漏洞描述中提到，在 Cilium 启动时，eBPF 程序未正确附加到主机，导致在此期间缺少网络策略强制执行和负载均衡功能。这直接影响了 Cilium 管理的端点（例如 Kubernetes Pods）以及主机网络命名空间。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致容器之间的隔离性被破坏。由于在 Cilium 启动期间缺乏网络策略强制执行，可能会导致网络策略绕过（Network Policy bypass），从而使某些容器能够访问本应被禁止的资源或网络。此外，主机网络命名空间也会受到影响，可能增加宿主机被攻击的风险。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，条件 1 和 2 都满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/28xxx/CVE-2023-28840.json
|
||||
Moby is an open source container framework developed by Docker Inc. that is distributed as Docker, Mirantis Container Runtime, and various other downstream projects/products. The Moby daemon component (`dockerd`), which is developed as moby/moby, is commonly referred to as *Docker*.
|
||||
|
||||
Swarm Mode, which is compiled in and delivered by default in dockerd and is thus present in most major Moby downstreams, is a simple, built-in container orchestrator that is implemented through a combination of SwarmKit and supporting network code.
|
||||
|
||||
The overlay network driver is a core feature of Swarm Mode, providing isolated virtual LANs that allow communication between containers and services across the cluster. This driver is an implementation/user of VXLAN, which encapsulates link-layer (Ethernet) frames in UDP datagrams that tag the frame with a VXLAN Network ID (VNI) that identifies the originating overlay network. In addition, the overlay network driver supports an optional, off-by-default encrypted mode, which is especially useful when VXLAN packets traverses an untrusted network between nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
Encrypted overlay networks function by encapsulating the VXLAN datagrams through the use of the IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload protocol in Transport mode. By deploying IPSec encapsulation, encrypted overlay networks gain the additional properties of source authentication through cryptographic proof, data integrity through check-summing, and confidentiality through encryption.
|
||||
|
||||
When setting an endpoint up on an encrypted overlay network, Moby installs three iptables (Linux kernel firewall) rules that enforce both incoming and outgoing IPSec. These rules rely on the u32 iptables extension provided by the xt_u32 kernel module to directly filter on a VXLAN packet's VNI field, so that IPSec guarantees can be enforced on encrypted overlay networks without interfering with other overlay networks or other users of VXLAN.
|
||||
|
||||
Two iptables rules serve to filter incoming VXLAN datagrams with a VNI that corresponds to an encrypted network and discards unencrypted datagrams. The rules are appended to the end of the INPUT filter chain, following any rules that have been previously set by the system administrator. Administrator-set rules take precedence over the rules Moby sets to discard unencrypted VXLAN datagrams, which can potentially admit unencrypted datagrams that should have been discarded.
|
||||
|
||||
The injection of arbitrary Ethernet frames can enable a Denial of Service attack. A sophisticated attacker may be able to establish a UDP or TCP connection by way of the container’s outbound gateway that would otherwise be blocked by a stateful firewall, or carry out other escalations beyond simple injection by smuggling packets into the overlay network.
|
||||
|
||||
Patches are available in Moby releases 23.0.3 and 20.10.24. As Mirantis Container Runtime's 20.10 releases are numbered differently, users of that platform should update to 20.10.16.
|
||||
|
||||
Some workarounds are available. Close the VXLAN port (by default, UDP port 4789) to incoming traffic at the Internet boundary to prevent all VXLAN packet injection, and/or ensure that the `xt_u32` kernel module is available on all nodes of the Swarm cluster.
|
||||
analysis: ### 分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 与容器和隔离相关。具体来说，它涉及 Docker 的 Swarm Mode 和 overlay 网络驱动，这是用于在容器集群中提供网络隔离的核心功能之一。问题出在 iptables 规则配置上，这些规则旨在确保加密的 overlay 网络流量不会被未加密的流量干扰，从而影响网络隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致未加密的 VXLAN 数据包绕过预期的安全检查，进入加密的 overlay 网络。这可能会导致以下后果：
|
||||
- 攻击者可以通过注入任意以太网帧来发起拒绝服务 (DoS) 攻击。
|
||||
- 高级攻击者可能利用此漏洞建立本应被防火墙阻止的 UDP 或 TCP 连接。
|
||||
- 这种行为可能破坏容器之间的网络隔离，甚至可能影响宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
### 结论：
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此返回分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/28xxx/CVE-2023-28841.json
|
||||
Moby is an open source container framework developed by Docker Inc. that is distributed as Docker, Mirantis Container Runtime, and various other downstream projects/products. The Moby daemon component (`dockerd`), which is developed as moby/moby is commonly referred to as *Docker*.
|
||||
|
||||
Swarm Mode, which is compiled in and delivered by default in `dockerd` and is thus present in most major Moby downstreams, is a simple, built-in container orchestrator that is implemented through a combination of SwarmKit and supporting network code.
|
||||
|
||||
The `overlay` network driver is a core feature of Swarm Mode, providing isolated virtual LANs that allow communication between containers and services across the cluster. This driver is an implementation/user of VXLAN, which encapsulates link-layer (Ethernet) frames in UDP datagrams that tag the frame with the VXLAN metadata, including a VXLAN Network ID (VNI) that identifies the originating overlay network. In addition, the overlay network driver supports an optional, off-by-default encrypted mode, which is especially useful when VXLAN packets traverses an untrusted network between nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
Encrypted overlay networks function by encapsulating the VXLAN datagrams through the use of the IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload protocol in Transport mode. By deploying IPSec encapsulation, encrypted overlay networks gain the additional properties of source authentication through cryptographic proof, data integrity through check-summing, and confidentiality through encryption.
|
||||
|
||||
When setting an endpoint up on an encrypted overlay network, Moby installs three iptables (Linux kernel firewall) rules that enforce both incoming and outgoing IPSec. These rules rely on the `u32` iptables extension provided by the `xt_u32` kernel module to directly filter on a VXLAN packet's VNI field, so that IPSec guarantees can be enforced on encrypted overlay networks without interfering with other overlay networks or other users of VXLAN.
|
||||
|
||||
An iptables rule designates outgoing VXLAN datagrams with a VNI that corresponds to an encrypted overlay network for IPsec encapsulation.
|
||||
|
||||
Encrypted overlay networks on affected platforms silently transmit unencrypted data. As a result, `overlay` networks may appear to be functional, passing traffic as expected, but without any of the expected confidentiality or data integrity guarantees.
|
||||
|
||||
It is possible for an attacker sitting in a trusted position on the network to read all of the application traffic that is moving across the overlay network, resulting in unexpected secrets or user data disclosure. Thus, because many database protocols, internal APIs, etc. are not protected by a second layer of encryption, a user may use Swarm encrypted overlay networks to provide confidentiality, which due to this vulnerability this is no longer guaranteed.
|
||||
|
||||
Patches are available in Moby releases 23.0.3, and 20.10.24. As Mirantis Container Runtime's 20.10 releases are numbered differently, users of that platform should update to 20.10.16.
|
||||
|
||||
Some workarounds are available. Close the VXLAN port (by default, UDP port 4789) to outgoing traffic at the Internet boundary in order to prevent unintentionally leaking unencrypted traffic over the Internet, and/or ensure that the `xt_u32` kernel module is available on all nodes of the Swarm cluster.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器和隔离相关。具体来说，它涉及 Docker 和 Moby 的 Swarm Mode 功能，以及 `overlay` 网络驱动程序。`overlay` 网络驱动程序通过 VXLAN 提供容器和服务之间的跨集群通信，并且支持加密模式以增强隔离性和安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器在网络层面的安全性受到威胁。由于加密的 `overlay` 网络未能正确实施 IPsec 封装，攻击者可能在网络中嗅探到未加密的数据流，从而导致敏感信息泄露。这种漏洞可能影响整个 Swarm 集群中的容器通信安全，但不会直接影响宿主机的操作系统或资源隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/28xxx/CVE-2023-28842.json
|
||||
Moby) is an open source container framework developed by Docker Inc. that is distributed as Docker, Mirantis Container Runtime, and various other downstream projects/products. The Moby daemon component (`dockerd`), which is developed as moby/moby is commonly referred to as *Docker*.
|
||||
|
||||
Swarm Mode, which is compiled in and delivered by default in `dockerd` and is thus present in most major Moby downstreams, is a simple, built-in container orchestrator that is implemented through a combination of SwarmKit and supporting network code.
|
||||
|
||||
The `overlay` network driver is a core feature of Swarm Mode, providing isolated virtual LANs that allow communication between containers and services across the cluster. This driver is an implementation/user of VXLAN, which encapsulates link-layer (Ethernet) frames in UDP datagrams that tag the frame with the VXLAN metadata, including a VXLAN Network ID (VNI) that identifies the originating overlay network. In addition, the overlay network driver supports an optional, off-by-default encrypted mode, which is especially useful when VXLAN packets traverses an untrusted network between nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
Encrypted overlay networks function by encapsulating the VXLAN datagrams through the use of the IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload protocol in Transport mode. By deploying IPSec encapsulation, encrypted overlay networks gain the additional properties of source authentication through cryptographic proof, data integrity through check-summing, and confidentiality through encryption.
|
||||
|
||||
When setting an endpoint up on an encrypted overlay network, Moby installs three iptables (Linux kernel firewall) rules that enforce both incoming and outgoing IPSec. These rules rely on the `u32` iptables extension provided by the `xt_u32` kernel module to directly filter on a VXLAN packet's VNI field, so that IPSec guarantees can be enforced on encrypted overlay networks without interfering with other overlay networks or other users of VXLAN.
|
||||
|
||||
The `overlay` driver dynamically and lazily defines the kernel configuration for the VXLAN network on each node as containers are attached and detached. Routes and encryption parameters are only defined for destination nodes that participate in the network. The iptables rules that prevent encrypted overlay networks from accepting unencrypted packets are not created until a peer is available with which to communicate.
|
||||
|
||||
Encrypted overlay networks silently accept cleartext VXLAN datagrams that are tagged with the VNI of an encrypted overlay network. As a result, it is possible to inject arbitrary Ethernet frames into the encrypted overlay network by encapsulating them in VXLAN datagrams. The implications of this can be quite dire, and GHSA-vwm3-crmr-xfxw should be referenced for a deeper exploration.
|
||||
|
||||
Patches are available in Moby releases 23.0.3, and 20.10.24. As Mirantis Container Runtime's 20.10 releases are numbered differently, users of that platform should update to 20.10.16.
|
||||
|
||||
Some workarounds are available. In multi-node clusters, deploy a global ‘pause’ container for each encrypted overlay network, on every node. For a single-node cluster, do not use overlay networks of any sort. Bridge networks provide the same connectivity on a single node and have no multi-node features. The Swarm ingress feature is implemented using an overlay network, but can be disabled by publishing ports in `host` mode instead of `ingress` mode (allowing the use of an external load balancer), and removing the `ingress` network. If encrypted overlay networks are in exclusive use, block UDP port 4789 from traffic that has not been validated by IPSec.
|
||||
analysis: ### 分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
- 是。该 CVE 涉及 Moby（Docker 的核心组件）中的 `overlay` 网络驱动，这是一个用于容器间通信的核心功能。`overlay` 网络通过 VXLAN 提供跨节点的容器网络隔离。此外，加密的 overlay 网络依赖于 iptables 规则和 IPsec 来确保数据的机密性和完整性，这直接影响容器之间的网络隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
- 是。由于加密的 overlay 网络会错误地接受未加密的 VXLAN 数据包，攻击者可以通过注入任意以太网帧来破坏网络隔离。这种漏洞可能允许攻击者从一个容器中发送恶意流量到另一个容器或宿主机，从而突破容器间的隔离，甚至可能对宿主机或其他容器造成进一步的危害。
|
||||
|
||||
### 结论：
|
||||
该 CVE 信息满足条件 1 和条件 2，因此分析表明它与容器隔离相关，并可能导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/28xxx/CVE-2023-28960.json
|
||||
An Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource vulnerability in Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows a local, authenticated low-privileged attacker to copy potentially malicious files into an existing Docker container on the local system. A follow-on administrator could then inadvertently start the Docker container leading to the malicious files being executed as root. This issue only affects systems with Docker configured and enabled, which is not enabled by default. Systems without Docker started are not vulnerable to this issue. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved: 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S5-EVO; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-EVO; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-EVO; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R2-EVO. This issue does not affect Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved versions prior to 19.2R1-EVO.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息明确提到与Docker容器相关。攻击者可以通过权限分配错误将恶意文件复制到现有的Docker容器中，这表明问题与容器的文件系统和资源隔离机制有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器内的恶意文件被执行，并且以root权限运行。如果容器共享了宿主机的某些资源（例如通过不恰当的配置），这种行为可能会进一步影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。此外，攻击需要本地低权限用户发起，说明容器环境可能存在权限管理或隔离上的缺陷。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据分析，该CVE满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/29xxx/CVE-2023-29002.json
|
||||
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. When run in debug mode, Cilium will log the contents of the `cilium-secrets` namespace. This could include data such as TLS private keys for Ingress and GatewayAPI resources. An attacker with access to debug output from the Cilium containers could use the resulting output to intercept and modify traffic to and from the affected cluster. Output of the sensitive information would occur at Cilium agent restart, when secrets in the namespace are modified, and on creation of Ingress or GatewayAPI resources. This vulnerability is fixed in Cilium releases 1.11.16, 1.12.9, and 1.13.2. Users unable to upgrade should disable debug mode.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关。具体来说，Cilium 在调试模式下会记录 `cilium-secrets` 命名空间的内容，这可能包含敏感数据（例如 TLS 私钥）。命名空间是 Linux 容器隔离机制的一部分，因此这里涉及到了 namespace 的概念。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
这个漏洞本身不会直接导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。然而，如果攻击者能够访问调试输出（例如通过获取 Cilium 容器的日志），他们可以利用泄露的敏感信息（如 TLS 私钥）来拦截和修改流量，从而对整个集群的安全性造成威胁。这种威胁主要体现在数据泄露和潜在的流量操控上，而不是直接破坏容器隔离或宿主机安全。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 满足（与 namespace 相关），条件 2 不完全满足（不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机，但可能导致间接威胁）。因此，返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/30xxx/CVE-2023-30549.json
|
||||
Apptainer is an open source container platform for Linux. There is an ext4 use-after-free flaw that is exploitable through versions of Apptainer < 1.1.0 and installations that include apptainer-suid < 1.1.8 on older operating systems where that CVE has not been patched. That includes Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, Debian 10 buster (unless the linux-5.10 package is installed), Ubuntu 18.04 bionic and Ubuntu 20.04 focal. Use-after-free flaws in the kernel can be used to attack the kernel for denial of service and potentially for privilege escalation.
|
||||
|
||||
Apptainer 1.1.8 includes a patch that by default disables mounting of extfs filesystem types in setuid-root mode, while continuing to allow mounting of extfs filesystems in non-setuid "rootless" mode using fuse2fs.
|
||||
|
||||
Some workarounds are possible. Either do not install apptainer-suid (for versions 1.1.0 through 1.1.7) or set `allow setuid = no` in apptainer.conf. This requires having unprivileged user namespaces enabled and except for apptainer 1.1.x versions will disallow mounting of sif files, extfs files, and squashfs files in addition to other, less significant impacts. (Encrypted sif files are also not supported unprivileged in apptainer 1.1.x.). Alternatively, use the `limit containers` options in apptainer.conf/singularity.conf to limit sif files to trusted users, groups, and/or paths, and set `allow container extfs = no` to disallow mounting of extfs overlay files. The latter option by itself does not disallow mounting of extfs overlay partitions inside SIF files, so that's why the former options are also needed.
|
||||
analysis: ### 分析结果：
|
||||
|
||||
1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器技术相关。Apptainer（前身为 Singularity）是一个开源的容器平台，用于在 Linux 系统上运行容器化应用程序。此漏洞涉及 Apptainer 的文件系统挂载功能，特别是在使用 setuid-root 模式时挂载 extfs 文件系统时可能存在 use-after-free 漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能会影响宿主机的安全性。具体来说，use-after-free 漏洞可以被利用来攻击内核，导致拒绝服务（DoS）或潜在的权限提升（privilege escalation）。由于 Apptainer 的设计允许容器直接与宿主机内核交互（特别是在 setuid-root 模式下），这种漏洞可能会波及宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果而非 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/30xxx/CVE-2023-30840.json
|
||||
Fluid is an open source Kubernetes-native distributed dataset orchestrator and accelerator for data-intensive applications. Starting in version 0.7.0 and prior to version 0.8.6, if a malicious user gains control of a Kubernetes node running fluid csi pod (controlled by the `csi-nodeplugin-fluid` node-daemonset), they can leverage the fluid-csi service account to modify specs of all the nodes in the cluster. However, since this service account lacks `list node` permissions, the attacker may need to use other techniques to identify vulnerable nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
Once the attacker identifies and modifies the node specs, they can manipulate system-level-privileged components to access all secrets in the cluster or execute pods on other nodes. This allows them to elevate privileges beyond the compromised node and potentially gain full privileged access to the whole cluster.
|
||||
|
||||
To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker can make all other nodes unschedulable (for example, patch node with taints) and wait for system-critical components with high privilege to appear on the compromised node. However, this attack requires two prerequisites: a compromised node and identifying all vulnerable nodes through other means.
|
||||
|
||||
Version 0.8.6 contains a patch for this issue. As a workaround, delete the `csi-nodeplugin-fluid` daemonset in `fluid-system` namespace and avoid using CSI mode to mount FUSE file systems. Alternatively, using sidecar mode to mount FUSE file systems is recommended.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞与容器和Kubernetes集群中的隔离性相关。具体来说，Fluid 是一个 Kubernetes 原生的分布式数据集编排和加速工具，涉及 CSI（Container Storage Interface）插件的使用。漏洞描述中提到，攻击者可以通过控制 `csi-nodeplugin-fluid` 的 DaemonSet，利用 Fluid 的 CSI 服务账户权限来修改节点规格，从而影响整个集群的资源调度和安全性。这表明该问题与容器运行时环境及 Kubernetes 集群的隔离机制密切相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致攻击者突破单个节点的限制，影响其他节点上的容器或宿主机的安全性。通过修改节点规格，攻击者可以操控系统级特权组件，访问集群中的所有机密信息，甚至在其他节点上执行恶意 Pod。这表明该漏洞可能破坏容器之间的隔离性，并对整个集群构成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此需要返回分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/30xxx/CVE-2023-30997.json
|
||||
IBM Security Access Manager Docker 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.7.1 could allow a local user to obtain root access due to improper access controls. IBM X-Force ID: 254638.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离机制无直接关系。描述中提到的是 IBM Security Access Manager Docker 版本中存在的问题，但问题是由于不恰当的访问控制导致本地用户可以获得 root 权限，而不是容器隔离机制本身的漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会影响运行中的容器或宿主机安全。由于不恰当的访问控制，本地用户可以获取 root 权限，这可能允许攻击者在容器内提升权限，进而可能影响到宿主机或其他共享同一宿主机的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据分析结果，这个 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2 的部分要求。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/30xxx/CVE-2023-30998.json
|
||||
IBM Security Access Manager Docker 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.7.1 could allow a local user to obtain root access due to improper access controls. IBM X-Force ID: 254649.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 提及了 IBM Security Access Manager 的 Docker 版本，明确涉及容器技术。问题源于“improper access controls”，这可能与容器的访问控制或权限隔离机制有关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，根据描述，“a local user to obtain root access” 表明本地用户可以获取 root 权限。如果攻击者在一个容器内利用此漏洞获得 root 权限，可能会突破容器的隔离机制，进一步影响同一宿主机上的其他容器或直接危害宿主机本身。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
由于条件 1 和 2 均满足，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/31xxx/CVE-2023-31004.json
|
||||
IBM Security Access Manager Container (IBM Security Verify Access Appliance 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.6.1 and IBM Security Verify Access Docker 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.6.1) could allow a remote attacker to gain access to the underlying system using man in the middle techniques. IBM X-Force ID: 254765.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到了IBM Security Access Manager Container以及IBM Security Verify Access Docker，这表明它与容器技术相关。此外，描述中提到攻击者可以通过中间人（Man-in-the-Middle, MitM）技术访问底层系统，这可能涉及容器的隔离机制被绕过或破坏。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
根据描述，攻击者能够通过MitM技术访问底层系统（即宿主机）。这意味着该漏洞可能会导致容器的隔离机制失效，从而使攻击者可以影响宿主机或其他在同一宿主机上运行的容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/31xxx/CVE-2023-31005.json
|
||||
IBM Security Access Manager Container (IBM Security Verify Access Appliance 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.6.1 and IBM Security Verify Access Docker 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.6.1) could allow a local user to escalate their privileges due to an improper security configuration. IBM X-Force ID: 254767.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到了IBM Security Access Manager Container以及IBM Security Verify Access Docker，这表明它与容器技术（如Docker）相关。此外，漏洞描述中提到的安全配置问题可能涉及容器的隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
根据描述，该漏洞允许本地用户通过不当的安全配置提升权限。如果攻击者成功利用此漏洞，可能会突破容器的隔离机制，进一步影响宿主机或其他在同一宿主机上运行的容器。因此，这种漏洞存在影响其他容器或宿主机的可能性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 该CVE信息满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/31xxx/CVE-2023-31006.json
|
||||
IBM Security Access Manager Container (IBM Security Verify Access Appliance 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.6.1 and IBM Security Verify Access Docker 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.6.1) is vulnerable to a denial of service attacks on the DSC server. IBM X-Force ID: 254776.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 描述了 IBM Security Access Manager Container 存在一个针对 DSC（Distributed Session Cache）服务器的拒绝服务漏洞。描述中提到的是容器化产品（IBM Security Verify Access Appliance 和 Docker 版本），但并未明确提及 namespace、cgroup、container 或者隔离机制本身的缺陷，而是专注于特定服务（DSC 服务器）的漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 根据描述，此漏洞可能导致对 DSC 服务器的拒绝服务攻击，影响的是容器内的 DSC 服务功能。没有证据表明该漏洞会影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性或稳定性。因此，它不会直接导致运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
### 结论：
|
||||
N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/31xxx/CVE-2023-31248.json
|
||||
Linux Kernel nftables Use-After-Free Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability; `nft_chain_lookup_byid()` failed to check whether a chain was active and CAP_NET_ADMIN is in any user or network namespace
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞涉及 `CAP_NET_ADMIN` 权限在用户命名空间或网络命名空间中的使用。这表明它与 Linux 命名空间（namespace）有关，而命名空间是容器技术（如 Docker）实现隔离的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
有可能。由于漏洞允许本地权限提升，并且涉及 `CAP_NET_ADMIN` 权限在命名空间中的检查缺失，攻击者可能利用此漏洞从一个容器中逃脱，获取宿主机的更高权限，或者影响其他运行在同一宿主机上的容器。具体来说，如果攻击者能够在容器内利用此漏洞，则可能会绕过容器的隔离机制，进而对宿主机或其他容器造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/32xxx/CVE-2023-32191.json
|
||||
When RKE provisions a cluster, it stores the cluster state in a configmap called `full-cluster-state` inside the `kube-system` namespace of the cluster itself. The information available in there allows non-admin users to escalate to admin.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与 namespace 相关。描述中提到 `kube-system` namespace 中存储了一个名为 `full-cluster-state` 的 configmap，这明确涉及 Kubernetes 集群中的 namespace 概念。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。该漏洞的核心问题是权限提升，非管理员用户可以通过访问 `full-cluster-state` configmap 获得管理员权限。虽然这可能导致进一步的攻击（例如通过管理员权限操作其他容器或宿主机），但本身并不直接导致容器逃逸或对宿主机的直接影响。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 满足，条件 2 不满足，因此不返回 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
**总结分析：**
|
||||
该 CVE 涉及 Kubernetes 集群的配置管理问题，特别是 `kube-system` namespace 中敏感信息的暴露，可能导致权限提升。但不会直接导致容器逃逸或影响其他容器/宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/32xxx/CVE-2023-32194.json
|
||||
A vulnerability has been identified when granting a create or * global role for a resource type of "namespaces"; no matter the API group, the subject will receive *
|
||||
permissions for core namespaces. This can lead to someone being capable
|
||||
of accessing, creating, updating, or deleting a namespace in the
|
||||
project.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞与namespace直接相关。描述中明确提到“namespaces”资源类型，并指出如果授予创建或全局角色权限，用户将获得对核心命名空间的广泛权限（`*`权限）。这直接影响到namespace的管理，而namespace是容器隔离机制的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
有可能。由于该漏洞赋予了对namespace的广泛操作权限（包括创建、更新、删除），攻击者可能利用此权限来破坏容器隔离。例如，通过创建或删除特定namespace，攻击者可能干扰其他容器的正常运行，甚至可能逃逸到宿主机层面，从而影响整个容器环境的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2，因此返回上述分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/34xxx/CVE-2023-34242.json
|
||||
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. Prior to version 1.13.4, when Gateway API is enabled in Cilium, the absence of a check on the namespace in which a ReferenceGrant is created could result in Cilium unintentionally gaining visibility of secrets (including certificates) and services across namespaces. An attacker on an affected cluster can leverage this issue to use cluster secrets that should not be visible to them, or communicate with services that they should not have access to. Gateway API functionality is disabled by default. This vulnerability is fixed in Cilium release 1.13.4. As a workaround, restrict the creation of `ReferenceGrant` resources to admin users by using Kubernetes RBAC.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关。问题的核心在于 Cilium 在处理 Gateway API 时，未对 ReferenceGrant 所在的 namespace 进行检查，从而导致跨 namespace 的秘密（如证书和服务）被无意中暴露。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
该漏洞可能会间接影响其他容器的安全性。由于 Cilium 是一个网络和安全解决方案，负责管理容器之间的网络通信和访问控制，因此如果攻击者利用此漏洞获取了不应访问的秘密或服务，他们可能能够绕过隔离机制，进而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/34xxx/CVE-2023-34844.json
|
||||
Play With Docker < 0.0.2 has an insecure CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileged mode causing the docker container to escape.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器和隔离相关。描述中提到 Docker 容器的特权模式 (`CAP_SYS_ADMIN`) 存在安全问题，可能导致容器逃逸。容器逃逸通常涉及破坏容器与宿主机之间的隔离机制，因此直接关联到容器隔离技术（如 namespace 和 cgroup）。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 可能导致容器逃逸，从而使攻击者能够影响宿主机或其他在相同宿主机上运行的容器。具体来说，`CAP_SYS_ADMIN` 特权模式的不安全实现可能允许攻击者突破容器的限制，访问宿主机资源或干扰其他容器的正常运行。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/35xxx/CVE-2023-35001.json
|
||||
Linux Kernel nftables Out-Of-Bounds Read/Write Vulnerability; nft_byteorder poorly handled vm register contents when CAP_NET_ADMIN is in any user or network namespace
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关。描述中提到 "CAP_NET_ADMIN is in any user or network namespace"，说明问题涉及网络命名空间和用户命名空间，这些是 Linux 容器（如 Docker）实现隔离的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
可能会。由于该漏洞涉及 `nftables` 的出界读写问题，并且与 `CAP_NET_ADMIN` 权限在命名空间中的处理有关，攻击者可能利用此漏洞突破容器的隔离，影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。具体影响取决于容器配置以及是否赋予了相关权限。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件 1 和 2，需注意此漏洞对容器环境的潜在威胁。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/37xxx/CVE-2023-37273.json
|
||||
Auto-GPT is an experimental open-source application showcasing the capabilities of the GPT-4 language model. Running Auto-GPT version prior to 0.4.3 by cloning the git repo and executing `docker compose run auto-gpt` in the repo root uses a different docker-compose.yml file from the one suggested in the official docker set up instructions. The docker-compose.yml file located in the repo root mounts itself into the docker container without write protection. This means that if malicious custom python code is executed via the `execute_python_file` and `execute_python_code` commands, it can overwrite the docker-compose.yml file and abuse it to gain control of the host system the next time Auto-GPT is started. The issue has been patched in version 0.4.3.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息与容器和隔离相关。问题涉及 Docker 容器中 `docker-compose.yml` 文件被错误地挂载到容器内，并且没有启用写保护。这破坏了容器应有的隔离性，使得恶意代码可以在容器内修改宿主机上的文件。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致容器内的恶意代码覆盖宿主机上的 `docker-compose.yml` 文件。当宿主机下次启动 Auto-GPT 时，攻击者可以通过篡改后的配置文件进一步控制宿主机系统，从而对其他容器或整个宿主机造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此需要返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/37xxx/CVE-2023-37274.json
|
||||
Auto-GPT is an experimental open-source application showcasing the capabilities of the GPT-4 language model. When Auto-GPT is executed directly on the host system via the provided run.sh or run.bat files, custom Python code execution is sandboxed using a temporary dedicated docker container which should not have access to any files outside of the Auto-GPT workspace directory.
|
||||
Before v0.4.3, the `execute_python_code` command (introduced in v0.4.1) does not sanitize the `basename` arg before writing LLM-supplied code to a file with an LLM-supplied name. This allows for a path traversal attack that can overwrite any .py file outside the workspace directory by specifying a `basename` such as `../../../main.py`. This can further be abused to achieve arbitrary code execution on the host running Auto-GPT by e.g. overwriting autogpt/main.py which will be executed outside of the docker environment meant to sandbox custom python code execution the next time Auto-GPT is started. The issue has been patched in version 0.4.3. As a workaround, the risk introduced by this vulnerability can be remediated by running Auto-GPT in a virtual machine, or another environment in which damage to files or corruption of the program is not a critical problem.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器和隔离相关。Auto-GPT 使用了一个临时的专用 Docker 容器来沙箱化自定义 Python 代码的执行，以确保其不会访问 Auto-GPT 工作区目录之外的任何文件。然而，由于 `execute_python_code` 命令未对 `basename` 参数进行适当的 sanitization（清理），导致路径遍历攻击可以绕过这种隔离机制，从而影响宿主机上的文件。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器内的操作影响宿主机。通过路径遍历攻击，攻击者可以覆盖宿主机上的关键文件（例如 `autogpt/main.py`），并在宿主机上实现任意代码执行。这种行为破坏了容器的隔离性，使得容器内的漏洞能够直接影响宿主机，进而可能间接影响同一宿主机上的其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
由于条件 1 和条件 2 都满足，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/39xxx/CVE-2023-39347.json
|
||||
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. An attacker with the ability to update pod labels can cause Cilium to apply incorrect network policies. This issue arises due to the fact that on pod update, Cilium incorrectly uses user-provided pod labels to select the policies which apply to the workload in question. This can affect Cilium network policies that use the namespace, service account or cluster constructs to restrict traffic, Cilium clusterwide network policies that use Cilium namespace labels to select the Pod and Kubernetes network policies. Non-existent construct names can be provided, which bypass all network policies applicable to the construct. For example, providing a pod with a non-existent namespace as the value of the `io.kubernetes.pod.namespace` label results in none of the namespaced CiliumNetworkPolicies applying to the pod in question. This attack requires the attacker to have Kubernetes API Server access, as described in the Cilium Threat Model. This issue has been resolved in: Cilium versions 1.14.2, 1.13.7, and 1.12.14. Users are advised to upgrade. As a workaround an admission webhook can be used to prevent pod label updates to the `k8s:io.kubernetes.pod.namespace` and `io.cilium.k8s.policy.*` keys.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。问题的核心在于 Cilium 在处理 pod 更新时，错误地使用了用户提供的 pod 标签（labels），这可能导致不正确的网络策略被应用到特定的工作负载上。特别是，当提供一个不存在的命名空间（namespace）标签时，所有与该命名空间相关的 Cilium 网络策略将不再生效。因此，这直接影响了基于命名空间的隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能会影响容器之间的隔离性。通过利用该漏洞，攻击者可以绕过网络策略，导致本应隔离的容器之间能够进行未授权的通信。虽然该漏洞本身不会直接破坏宿主机的安全性，但它可能会间接削弱容器之间的隔离，从而为攻击者提供进一步渗透的机会。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 该 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2，因此需要进行上述分析。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/39xxx/CVE-2023-39523.json
|
||||
ScanCode.io is a server to script and automate software composition analysis with ScanPipe pipelines. Prior to version 32.5.1, the software has a possible command injection vulnerability in the docker fetch process as it allows to append malicious commands in the `docker_reference` parameter.
|
||||
|
||||
In the function `scanpipe/pipes/fetch.py:fetch_docker_image` the parameter `docker_reference` is user controllable. The `docker_reference` variable is then passed to the vulnerable function `get_docker_image_platform`. However, the `get_docker_image_plaform` function constructs a shell command with the passed `docker_reference`. The `pipes.run_command` then executes the shell command without any prior sanitization, making the function vulnerable to command injections. A malicious user who is able to create or add inputs to a project can inject commands. Although the command injections are blind and the user will not receive direct feedback without logs, it is still possible to cause damage to the server/container. The vulnerability appears for example if a malicious user adds a semicolon after the input of `docker://;`, it would allow appending malicious commands.
|
||||
|
||||
Version 32.5.1 contains a patch for this issue. The `docker_reference` input should be sanitized to avoid command injections and, as a workaround, one may avoid creating commands with user controlled input directly.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此漏洞与容器相关。漏洞出现在 `ScanCode.io` 的 `docker fetch` 过程中，涉及 `docker_reference` 参数的处理。该参数被传递到一个函数中，最终用于构造并执行 shell 命令，而这些命令可能在容器环境中运行。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致容器运行时影响宿主机或其他容器。由于命令注入漏洞的存在，攻击者可以通过恶意构造的 `docker_reference` 参数执行任意命令。如果容器以特权模式运行或共享宿主机的资源（如文件系统、网络等），攻击者可以利用此漏洞对宿主机或其他容器造成损害。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/3xxx/CVE-2023-3027.json
|
||||
The grc-policy-propagator allows security escalation within the cluster. The propagator allows policies which contain some dynamically obtained values (instead of the policy apply a static manifest on a managed cluster) of taking advantage of cluster scoped access in a created policy. This feature does not restrict properly to lookup content from the namespace where the policy was created.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息提到 "namespace" 和 "cluster scoped access"，并且描述了策略在集群中的传播问题。这表明它涉及 Kubernetes 集群中的命名空间隔离机制，可能影响命名空间级别的隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
虽然该漏洞主要涉及策略传播和命名空间访问控制，但它可能导致安全权限提升（security escalation），从而允许攻击者利用集群范围的访问权限来破坏其他命名空间或整个集群的隔离性。这种情况下，可能间接影响到运行在受影响命名空间中的容器，甚至可能波及宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
条件 1 和 2 均满足，因此返回分析结果如上。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/3xxx/CVE-2023-3774.json
|
||||
An unhandled error in Vault Enterprise's namespace creation may cause the Vault process to crash, potentially resulting in denial of service. Fixed in 1.14.1, 1.13.5, and 1.12.9.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 提到 Vault Enterprise 的命名空间创建过程中存在未处理的错误，可能导致 Vault 进程崩溃，进而引发拒绝服务（DoS）。这与 namespace 的操作相关，但没有直接提到 cgroup、container 或容器隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 并未提及此漏洞会影响其他容器或宿主机，描述中仅表明 Vault 进程可能会崩溃，导致拒绝服务。因此，没有证据表明此问题会对其他容器或宿主机产生影响。
|
||||
|
||||
### 结论：
|
||||
- 满足条件 1（与 namespace 相关）。
|
||||
- 不满足条件 2（不会影响其他容器或宿主机）。
|
||||
|
||||
分析完成。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/3xxx/CVE-2023-3775.json
|
||||
A Vault Enterprise Sentinel Role Governing Policy created by an operator to restrict access to resources in one namespace can be applied to requests outside in another non-descendant namespace, potentially resulting in denial of service. Fixed in Vault Enterprise 1.15.0, 1.14.4, 1.13.8.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 提到的是 Vault Enterprise 中的 Sentinel Role Governing Policy 的问题，具体涉及namespace 的访问控制策略。问题描述中明确提到“one namespace” 和 “another non-descendant namespace”，表明它与 namespace 相关。但没有提到 cgroup、container 或容器隔离相关内容。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞的影响范围仅限于 Vault Enterprise 的 namespace 访问控制策略，可能导致拒绝服务（DoS）。它并未涉及容器运行时的行为，也没有提到会影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 满足（与 namespace 相关），条件 2 不满足（不会影响其他容器或宿主机）。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/40xxx/CVE-2023-40453.json
|
||||
Docker Machine through 0.16.2 allows an attacker, who has control of a worker node, to provide crafted version data, which might potentially trick an administrator into performing an unsafe action (via escape sequence injection), or might have a data size that causes a denial of service to a bastion node. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
该 CVE 描述中提到 Docker Machine 的版本数据处理问题，可能通过逃逸序列注入或数据大小导致拒绝服务。这与容器的运行时行为有关，但并未直接涉及 namespace、cgroup 或隔离机制的具体实现。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
根据描述，攻击者可以通过控制 worker 节点提供恶意版本数据，从而可能影响 bastion 节点。这种影响可能间接导致管理员执行不安全操作，或者通过大尺寸数据引发拒绝服务。虽然没有明确提到容器逃逸，但 bastion 节点可能与宿主机或其他容器共享资源，因此存在潜在影响宿主机或间接影响其他容器的风险。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 部分满足，因此返回以下分析：
|
||||
- 与容器相关，但未直接涉及 namespace 或 cgroup。
|
||||
- 存在通过恶意输入影响宿主机或其他容器的潜在风险。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/41xxx/CVE-2023-41333.json
|
||||
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. An attacker with the ability to create or modify CiliumNetworkPolicy objects in a particular namespace is able to affect traffic on an entire Cilium cluster, potentially bypassing policy enforcement in other namespaces. By using a crafted `endpointSelector` that uses the `DoesNotExist` operator on the `reserved:init` label, the attacker can create policies that bypass namespace restrictions and affect the entire Cilium cluster. This includes potentially allowing or denying all traffic. This attack requires API server access, as described in the Kubernetes API Server Attacker section of the Cilium Threat Model. This issue has been resolved in Cilium versions 1.14.2, 1.13.7, and 1.12.14. As a workaround an admission webhook can be used to prevent the use of `endpointSelectors` that use the `DoesNotExist` operator on the `reserved:init` label in CiliumNetworkPolicies.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。问题的核心在于攻击者可以通过修改 CiliumNetworkPolicy 对象，利用特定的 `endpointSelector` 规则（如 `DoesNotExist` 操作符作用于 `reserved:init` 标签），绕过 namespace 的限制，从而影响整个 Cilium 集群的网络策略执行。这表明该漏洞破坏了 namespace 级别的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
这个 CVE 主要影响的是 Cilium 网络策略的执行，而不是直接对容器或宿主机的安全性造成威胁。然而，由于攻击者可以绕过 namespace 的限制并影响整个集群的流量规则，可能会间接导致某些容器之间的通信被错误地允许或拒绝。虽然这不是直接的容器逃逸漏洞，但它确实可能削弱容器间的网络隔离，进而对容器环境的整体安全性产生负面影响。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，根据以上分析，结论如下：
|
||||
- 该 CVE 与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。
|
||||
- 它不会直接导致容器逃逸，但会削弱容器间的网络隔离，可能间接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**最终答案：满足条件 1 和 2 的部分要求，非 N/A。**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/42xxx/CVE-2023-42125.json
|
||||
Avast Premium Security Sandbox Protection Link Following Privilege Escalation Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows local attackers to escalate privileges on affected installations of Avast Premium Security. An attacker must first obtain the ability to execute low-privileged code on the target system in order to exploit this vulnerability.
|
||||
|
||||
The specific flaw exists within the implementation of the sandbox feature. By creating a symbolic link, an attacker can abuse the service to create arbitrary namespace objects. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code in the context of SYSTEM.
|
||||
. Was ZDI-CAN-20383.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关，因为描述中提到攻击者可以通过创建符号链接滥用服务来创建任意的 namespace 对象。
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 不直接影响容器（如 Docker）或其隔离机制。虽然提到了 namespace，但此漏洞是特定于 Avast Premium Security 的沙箱功能实现问题，而不是容器运行时或 cgroup、container 隔离相关的通用问题。因此，它不会导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
3. 综上所述，条件 1 满足（与 namespace 相关），但条件 2 不满足（不影响容器或其他容器/宿主机的隔离）。
|
||||
|
||||
**分析结果：**
|
||||
- 与 namespace 相关。
|
||||
- 不会影响容器或宿主机的隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/48xxx/CVE-2023-48225.json
|
||||
Laf is a cloud development platform. Prior to version 1.0.0-beta.13, the control of LAF app enV is not strict enough, and in certain scenarios of privatization environment, it may lead to sensitive information leakage in secret and configmap. In ES6 syntax, if an obj directly references another obj, the name of the obj itself will be used as the key, and the entire object structure will be integrated intact. When constructing the deployment instance of the app, env was found from the database and directly inserted into the template, resulting in controllability here. Sensitive information in the secret and configmap can be read through the k8s envFrom field. In a privatization environment, when `namespaceConf. fixed` is marked, it may lead to the leakage of sensitive information in the system. As of time of publication, it is unclear whether any patches or workarounds exist.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器相关。描述中提到在 Kubernetes 环境下，通过 `envFrom` 字段可能导致敏感信息泄漏，而 `namespaceConf.fixed` 的配置也表明了问题涉及 Kubernetes 的命名空间（namespace）管理。Kubernetes 是一个容器编排平台，因此该问题间接与容器和隔离机制相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，可能存在影响。由于问题涉及 Kubernetes 的环境变量注入（`envFrom`），如果敏感信息（如 secrets 和 configmaps）被泄漏，攻击者可能利用这些信息访问其他容器或宿主机资源，特别是在共享同一命名空间的场景下。虽然该漏洞本身并不直接破坏容器隔离，但泄漏的敏感信息可能会被滥用，从而间接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
满足条件 1 和 2，分析完毕。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/48xxx/CVE-2023-48311.json
|
||||
dockerspawner is a tool to spawn JupyterHub single user servers in Docker containers. Users of JupyterHub deployments running DockerSpawner starting with 0.11.0 without specifying `DockerSpawner.allowed_images` configuration allow users to launch _any_ pullable docker image, instead of restricting to only the single configured image, as intended. This issue has been addressed in commit `3ba4b665b` which has been included in dockerspawner release version 13. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should explicitly set `DockerSpawner.allowed_images` to a non-empty list containing only the default image will result in the intended default behavior.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器相关。`dockerspawner` 是一个用于在 Docker 容器中启动 JupyterHub 单用户服务器的工具，涉及容器的配置和使用。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
该漏洞允许用户启动任意可拉取的 Docker 镜像，而不是限制为单个配置的镜像。这可能会导致以下风险：
|
||||
- 用户可以启动具有更高权限或恶意行为的容器。
|
||||
- 恶意容器可能尝试逃逸或利用其他漏洞来影响宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
- 如果没有适当的隔离配置（如 namespace 或 cgroup），这种行为可能会对宿主机的安全性造成威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，该漏洞可能会影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/49xxx/CVE-2023-49103.json
|
||||
An issue was discovered in ownCloud owncloud/graphapi 0.2.x before 0.2.1 and 0.3.x before 0.3.1. The graphapi app relies on a third-party GetPhpInfo.php library that provides a URL. When this URL is accessed, it reveals the configuration details of the PHP environment (phpinfo). This information includes all the environment variables of the webserver. In containerized deployments, these environment variables may include sensitive data such as the ownCloud admin password, mail server credentials, and license key. Simply disabling the graphapi app does not eliminate the vulnerability. Additionally, phpinfo exposes various other potentially sensitive configuration details that could be exploited by an attacker to gather information about the system. Therefore, even if ownCloud is not running in a containerized environment, this vulnerability should still be a cause for concern. Note that Docker containers from before February 2023 are not vulnerable to the credential disclosure.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 提到在容器化部署中，环境变量可能包含敏感信息（例如 ownCloud 管理员密码、邮件服务器凭据和许可证密钥）。这表明它与容器化环境相关，尤其是涉及容器内部的环境变量暴露问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
从描述来看，此漏洞主要导致敏感信息泄露，而不是直接破坏容器隔离性或影响其他容器或宿主机。然而，泄露的敏感信息（如管理员密码、邮件服务器凭据等）可能会被攻击者利用，间接对系统造成进一步威胁。虽然 Docker 容器在 2023 年 2 月之前的版本不受凭据泄露影响，但信息泄露本身仍然是一个严重问题。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
- 该 CVE 与容器化环境相关，尤其是涉及容器内的环境变量暴露。
|
||||
- 虽然不会直接破坏容器隔离性或直接影响其他容器或宿主机，但泄露的信息可能被用于进一步攻击。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/50xxx/CVE-2023-50253.json
|
||||
Laf is a cloud development platform. In the Laf version design, the log uses communication with k8s to quickly retrieve logs from the container without the need for additional storage. However, in version 1.0.0-beta.13 and prior, this interface does not verify the permissions of the pod, which allows authenticated users to obtain any pod logs under the same namespace through this method, thereby obtaining sensitive information printed in the logs. As of time of publication, no known patched versions exist.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器相关。问题描述中提到通过未验证权限的接口可以获取同一 namespace 下的任何 pod 日志，这表明问题发生在 Kubernetes 的 namespace 范围内，并且涉及容器日志的访问。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。虽然攻击者可以通过此漏洞获取同一 namespace 下其他 pod 的日志，但并未提到此漏洞允许直接访问其他容器的资源或宿主机系统。因此，影响主要集中在日志中的敏感信息泄露，而不是对容器或宿主机的进一步控制。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
- 满足条件 1，与 namespace 和容器相关。
|
||||
- 不满足条件 2，不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/52xxx/CVE-2023-52707.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
sched/psi: Fix use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue()
|
||||
|
||||
If a non-root cgroup gets removed when there is a thread that registered
|
||||
trigger and is polling on a pressure file within the cgroup, the polling
|
||||
waitqueue gets freed in the following path:
|
||||
|
||||
do_rmdir
|
||||
cgroup_rmdir
|
||||
kernfs_drain_open_files
|
||||
cgroup_file_release
|
||||
cgroup_pressure_release
|
||||
psi_trigger_destroy
|
||||
|
||||
However, the polling thread still has a reference to the pressure file and
|
||||
will access the freed waitqueue when the file is closed or upon exit:
|
||||
|
||||
fput
|
||||
ep_eventpoll_release
|
||||
ep_free
|
||||
ep_remove_wait_queue
|
||||
remove_wait_queue
|
||||
|
||||
This results in use-after-free as pasted below.
|
||||
|
||||
The fundamental problem here is that cgroup_file_release() (and
|
||||
consequently waitqueue's lifetime) is not tied to the file's real lifetime.
|
||||
Using wake_up_pollfree() here might be less than ideal, but it is in line
|
||||
with the comment at commit 42288cb44c4b ("wait: add wake_up_pollfree()")
|
||||
since the waitqueue's lifetime is not tied to file's one and can be
|
||||
considered as another special case. While this would be fixable by somehow
|
||||
making cgroup_file_release() be tied to the fput(), it would require
|
||||
sizable refactoring at cgroups or higher layer which might be more
|
||||
justifiable if we identify more cases like this.
|
||||
|
||||
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x60/0xc0
|
||||
Write of size 4 at addr ffff88810e625328 by task a.out/4404
|
||||
|
||||
CPU: 19 PID: 4404 Comm: a.out Not tainted 6.2.0-rc6 #38
|
||||
Hardware name: Amazon EC2 c5a.8xlarge/, BIOS 1.0 10/16/2017
|
||||
Call Trace:
|
||||
<TASK>
|
||||
dump_stack_lvl+0x73/0xa0
|
||||
print_report+0x16c/0x4e0
|
||||
kasan_report+0xc3/0xf0
|
||||
kasan_check_range+0x2d2/0x310
|
||||
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x60/0xc0
|
||||
remove_wait_queue+0x1a/0xa0
|
||||
ep_free+0x12c/0x170
|
||||
ep_eventpoll_release+0x26/0x30
|
||||
__fput+0x202/0x400
|
||||
task_work_run+0x11d/0x170
|
||||
do_exit+0x495/0x1130
|
||||
do_group_exit+0x100/0x100
|
||||
get_signal+0xd67/0xde0
|
||||
arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x2a/0x2b0
|
||||
exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x94/0x100
|
||||
syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x20/0x40
|
||||
do_syscall_64+0x52/0x90
|
||||
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
|
||||
</TASK>
|
||||
|
||||
Allocated by task 4404:
|
||||
|
||||
kasan_set_track+0x3d/0x60
|
||||
__kasan_kmalloc+0x85/0x90
|
||||
psi_trigger_create+0x113/0x3e0
|
||||
pressure_write+0x146/0x2e0
|
||||
cgroup_file_write+0x11c/0x250
|
||||
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x186/0x220
|
||||
vfs_write+0x3d8/0x5c0
|
||||
ksys_write+0x90/0x110
|
||||
do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
|
||||
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
|
||||
|
||||
Freed by task 4407:
|
||||
|
||||
kasan_set_track+0x3d/0x60
|
||||
kasan_save_free_info+0x27/0x40
|
||||
____kasan_slab_free+0x11d/0x170
|
||||
slab_free_freelist_hook+0x87/0x150
|
||||
__kmem_cache_free+0xcb/0x180
|
||||
psi_trigger_destroy+0x2e8/0x310
|
||||
cgroup_file_release+0x4f/0xb0
|
||||
kernfs_drain_open_files+0x165/0x1f0
|
||||
kernfs_drain+0x162/0x1a0
|
||||
__kernfs_remove+0x1fb/0x310
|
||||
kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x95/0xe0
|
||||
cgroup_addrm_files+0x67f/0x700
|
||||
cgroup_destroy_locked+0x283/0x3c0
|
||||
cgroup_rmdir+0x29/0x100
|
||||
kernfs_iop_rmdir+0xd1/0x140
|
||||
vfs_rmdir+0xfe/0x240
|
||||
do_rmdir+0x13d/0x280
|
||||
__x64_sys_rmdir+0x2c/0x30
|
||||
do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
|
||||
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 cgroup 直接相关。漏洞描述中提到的问题发生在 cgroup 的压力文件（pressure file）被移除时，涉及到 `cgroup_rmdir` 和 `cgroup_file_release` 等函数。Cgroup 是 Linux 内核中的一个关键机制，用于限制和隔离资源使用，也是容器技术（如 Docker）实现资源隔离的基础。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
是的，这个问题可能会导致容器运行时影响其他容器或宿主机。具体来说，如果一个非 root cgroup 被移除时，仍然有线程在该 cgroup 的压力文件上进行轮询操作，那么可能会触发 use-after-free 漏洞。这种问题可能会影响宿主机的稳定性，甚至可能导致内核崩溃或其他未定义行为。由于 cgroup 是容器隔离的核心组件之一，这种漏洞可能会破坏容器之间的隔离性，从而对整个容器环境造成潜在威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
根据上述分析，条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回具体的分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/52xxx/CVE-2023-52880.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
tty: n_gsm: require CAP_NET_ADMIN to attach N_GSM0710 ldisc
|
||||
|
||||
Any unprivileged user can attach N_GSM0710 ldisc, but it requires
|
||||
CAP_NET_ADMIN to create a GSM network anyway.
|
||||
|
||||
Require initial namespace CAP_NET_ADMIN to do that.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该漏洞涉及 `CAP_NET_ADMIN` 权限和命名空间（namespace）的概念。具体来说，修复措施要求在初始命名空间中具备 `CAP_NET_ADMIN` 权限才能附加 `N_GSM0710` 行规解释器（ldisc）。这表明该问题与 Linux 命名空间的权限控制机制有关，而命名空间是容器技术（如 Docker）实现隔离的重要组成部分。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
可能会。由于任何非特权用户都可以附加 `N_GSM0710` ldisc，而创建 GSM 网络通常需要 `CAP_NET_ADMIN` 权限，这可能导致权限提升的风险。如果攻击者在容器内利用此漏洞，可能会绕过容器的隔离机制，进而影响同一宿主机上的其他容器或直接危害宿主机的安全。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论：**
|
||||
该 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2，因此需要进行详细分析并采取相应的安全措施以防止潜在的容器逃逸或权限提升问题。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/52xxx/CVE-2023-52940.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
mm: multi-gen LRU: fix crash during cgroup migration
|
||||
|
||||
lru_gen_migrate_mm() assumes lru_gen_add_mm() runs prior to itself. This
|
||||
isn't true for the following scenario:
|
||||
|
||||
CPU 1 CPU 2
|
||||
|
||||
clone()
|
||||
cgroup_can_fork()
|
||||
cgroup_procs_write()
|
||||
cgroup_post_fork()
|
||||
task_lock()
|
||||
lru_gen_migrate_mm()
|
||||
task_unlock()
|
||||
task_lock()
|
||||
lru_gen_add_mm()
|
||||
task_unlock()
|
||||
|
||||
And when the above happens, kernel crashes because of linked list
|
||||
corruption (mm_struct->lru_gen.list).
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
- 是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到 `cgroup` 和 `lru_gen_migrate_mm()` 函数。`cgroup`（控制组）是 Linux 内核中用于限制、控制和隔离进程组资源（如 CPU、内存、磁盘 I/O 等）的核心技术之一，也是容器（如 Docker）实现资源隔离的重要组成部分。因此，该漏洞与 `cgroup` 和容器隔离机制密切相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
- 有可能。由于该漏洞涉及 `cgroup` 的迁移逻辑 (`cgroup_procs_write()`) 和内存管理 (`lru_gen_migrate_mm()`) 的交互，如果一个容器内的进程触发了此漏洞，可能会导致内核崩溃（kernel crash）。这种崩溃可能会影响整个宿主机系统，包括宿主机上的其他容器。因此，该漏洞可能被利用来破坏容器之间的隔离性，甚至影响宿主机的稳定性。
|
||||
|
||||
综上所述，该 CVE 满足条件 1 和条件 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/52xxx/CVE-2023-52942.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
cgroup/cpuset: Fix wrong check in update_parent_subparts_cpumask()
|
||||
|
||||
It was found that the check to see if a partition could use up all
|
||||
the cpus from the parent cpuset in update_parent_subparts_cpumask()
|
||||
was incorrect. As a result, it is possible to leave parent with no
|
||||
effective cpu left even if there are tasks in the parent cpuset. This
|
||||
can lead to system panic as reported in [1].
|
||||
|
||||
Fix this probem by updating the check to fail the enabling the partition
|
||||
if parent's effective_cpus is a subset of the child's cpus_allowed.
|
||||
|
||||
Also record the error code when an error happens in update_prstate()
|
||||
and add a test case where parent partition and child have the same cpu
|
||||
list and parent has task. Enabling partition in the child will fail in
|
||||
this case.
|
||||
|
||||
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/cgroups/msg36254.html
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与cgroup（控制组）直接相关。具体来说，问题出现在`cpuset`子系统中的`update_parent_subparts_cpumask()`函数中，涉及对CPU资源分配的检查逻辑。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器运行时影响宿主机或其他容器的稳定性。由于`cpuset`子系统用于限制和分配CPU资源，错误的检查逻辑可能使得父`cpuset`（通常对应宿主机或其他共享资源的容器）被剥夺所有可用CPU资源，从而导致任务无法正常运行，甚至引发系统崩溃（如描述中提到的“system panic”）。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，该CVE满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/5xxx/CVE-2023-5056.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in the Skupper operator, which may permit a certain configuration to create a service account that would allow an authenticated attacker in the adjacent cluster to view deployments in all namespaces in the cluster. This issue permits unauthorized viewing of information outside of the user's purview.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关，因为它涉及到在集群中跨命名空间的信息访问问题。然而，它并未明确提到 cgroup、container 或容器隔离机制。
|
||||
2. 根据描述，该漏洞不会直接影响容器的运行时行为，也不会导致一个容器影响其他容器或宿主机。它的影响主要体现在信息泄露方面，即允许攻击者查看本不应访问的部署信息。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，条件 1 部分满足（与 namespace 相关），但条件 2 不满足。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：N/A**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2023/5xxx/CVE-2023-5165.json
|
||||
Docker Desktop before 4.23.0 allows an unprivileged user to bypass Enhanced Container Isolation (ECI) restrictions via the debug shell which remains accessible for a short time window after launching Docker Desktop. The affected functionality is available for Docker Business customers only and assumes an environment where users are not granted local root or Administrator privileges.
|
||||
|
||||
This issue has been fixed in Docker Desktop 4.23.0.
|
||||
|
||||
Affected Docker Desktop versions: from 4.13.0 before 4.23.0.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器隔离相关。具体来说，它涉及Docker Desktop中的“Enhanced Container Isolation (ECI)”功能，该功能旨在增强容器的隔离性。问题在于调试shell在Docker Desktop启动后的一段时间内仍然可访问，这可能导致隔离机制被绕过。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能会影响其他容器或宿主机。由于调试shell的短暂可访问性，未授权的用户可以利用这一窗口绕过隔离限制，从而可能对宿主机或其他容器造成潜在威胁。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：满足条件1和2。**
|
||||
1623
general_result/24.log
Normal file
1623
general_result/24.log
Normal file
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
503
general_result/25.log
Normal file
503
general_result/25.log
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,503 @@
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/0xxx/CVE-2025-0113.json
|
||||
A problem with the network isolation mechanism of the Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR Broker VM allows attackers unauthorized access to Docker containers from the host network used by Broker VM. This may allow access to read files sent for analysis and logs transmitted by the Cortex XDR Agent to the Cortex XDR server.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与网络隔离机制相关，并明确提到了Docker容器和Broker VM的主机网络。这涉及到容器与宿主机之间的网络隔离问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，由于网络隔离机制的问题，攻击者可以从宿主机网络访问Docker容器，这可能会导致敏感数据泄露（如分析文件和日志）。这种漏洞可能允许攻击者绕过隔离，从而影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，该CVE满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/0xxx/CVE-2025-0937.json
|
||||
Nomad Community and Nomad Enterprise ("Nomad") event stream configured with a wildcard namespace can bypass the ACL Policy allowing reads on other namespaces.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关。描述中提到 Nomad 的事件流配置为 wildcard namespace 时，可能会绕过 ACL 策略，从而允许对其他 namespaces 进行读取操作。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。此漏洞主要涉及权限控制问题，即通过 wildcard namespace 绕过 ACL 策略后，可以访问其他 namespaces 的数据。这可能间接影响依赖于正确权限隔离的容器化环境，但并未直接描述对容器运行时或宿主机的破坏性影响。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 满足条件 1，不满足条件 2，因此返回分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/21xxx/CVE-2025-21634.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
cgroup/cpuset: remove kernfs active break
|
||||
|
||||
A warning was found:
|
||||
|
||||
WARNING: CPU: 10 PID: 3486953 at fs/kernfs/file.c:828
|
||||
CPU: 10 PID: 3486953 Comm: rmdir Kdump: loaded Tainted: G
|
||||
RIP: 0010:kernfs_should_drain_open_files+0x1a1/0x1b0
|
||||
RSP: 0018:ffff8881107ef9e0 EFLAGS: 00010202
|
||||
RAX: 0000000080000002 RBX: ffff888154738c00 RCX: dffffc0000000000
|
||||
RDX: 0000000000000007 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffff888154738c04
|
||||
RBP: ffff888154738c04 R08: ffffffffaf27fa15 R09: ffffed102a8e7180
|
||||
R10: ffff888154738c07 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff888154738c08
|
||||
R13: ffff888750f8c000 R14: ffff888750f8c0e8 R15: ffff888154738ca0
|
||||
FS: 00007f84cd0be740(0000) GS:ffff8887ddc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
|
||||
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
|
||||
CR2: 0000555f9fbe00c8 CR3: 0000000153eec001 CR4: 0000000000370ee0
|
||||
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
|
||||
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
|
||||
Call Trace:
|
||||
kernfs_drain+0x15e/0x2f0
|
||||
__kernfs_remove+0x165/0x300
|
||||
kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x7b/0xc0
|
||||
cgroup_rm_file+0x154/0x1c0
|
||||
cgroup_addrm_files+0x1c2/0x1f0
|
||||
css_clear_dir+0x77/0x110
|
||||
kill_css+0x4c/0x1b0
|
||||
cgroup_destroy_locked+0x194/0x380
|
||||
cgroup_rmdir+0x2a/0x140
|
||||
|
||||
It can be explained by:
|
||||
rmdir echo 1 > cpuset.cpus
|
||||
kernfs_fop_write_iter // active=0
|
||||
cgroup_rm_file
|
||||
kernfs_remove_by_name_ns kernfs_get_active // active=1
|
||||
__kernfs_remove // active=0x80000002
|
||||
kernfs_drain cpuset_write_resmask
|
||||
wait_event
|
||||
//waiting (active == 0x80000001)
|
||||
kernfs_break_active_protection
|
||||
// active = 0x80000001
|
||||
// continue
|
||||
kernfs_unbreak_active_protection
|
||||
// active = 0x80000002
|
||||
...
|
||||
kernfs_should_drain_open_files
|
||||
// warning occurs
|
||||
kernfs_put_active
|
||||
|
||||
This warning is caused by 'kernfs_break_active_protection' when it is
|
||||
writing to cpuset.cpus, and the cgroup is removed concurrently.
|
||||
|
||||
The commit 3a5a6d0c2b03 ("cpuset: don't nest cgroup_mutex inside
|
||||
get_online_cpus()") made cpuset_hotplug_workfn asynchronous, This change
|
||||
involves calling flush_work(), which can create a multiple processes
|
||||
circular locking dependency that involve cgroup_mutex, potentially leading
|
||||
to a deadlock. To avoid deadlock. the commit 76bb5ab8f6e3 ("cpuset: break
|
||||
kernfs active protection in cpuset_write_resmask()") added
|
||||
'kernfs_break_active_protection' in the cpuset_write_resmask. This could
|
||||
lead to this warning.
|
||||
|
||||
After the commit 2125c0034c5d ("cgroup/cpuset: Make cpuset hotplug
|
||||
processing synchronous"), the cpuset_write_resmask no longer needs to
|
||||
wait the hotplug to finish, which means that concurrent hotplug and cpuset
|
||||
operations are no longer possible. Therefore, the deadlock doesn't exist
|
||||
anymore and it does not have to 'break active protection' now. To fix this
|
||||
warning, just remove kernfs_break_active_protection operation in the
|
||||
'cpuset_write_resmask'.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与`cgroup`和`cpuset`子系统直接相关。`cgroup`（控制组）是Linux内核中用于限制、控制和隔离进程组资源（如CPU、内存、磁盘I/O等）的重要机制，广泛应用于容器技术（如Docker、Kubernetes等）以实现资源隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
从描述来看，该漏洞涉及`kernfs_break_active_protection`操作导致的警告问题。虽然这是一个潜在的内核问题，但它主要影响`cgroup`子系统的稳定性和一致性，而不是直接破坏容器之间的隔离性或对宿主机的安全造成威胁。具体来说：
|
||||
- 该问题可能导致内核在处理`cpuset.cpus`文件时出现竞争条件（concurrency issue），从而触发警告。
|
||||
- 不过，这种警告并不会直接导致容器逃逸（container escape）或其他安全风险，而是可能引发内核的不稳定行为（如死锁或崩溃），间接影响整个系统的可靠性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
由于该CVE与`cgroup`相关，并可能间接影响容器运行时的稳定性，因此满足条件1和条件2的部分要求。然而，它并不直接导致容器逃逸或直接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/21xxx/CVE-2025-21659.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
netdev: prevent accessing NAPI instances from another namespace
|
||||
|
||||
The NAPI IDs were not fully exposed to user space prior to the netlink
|
||||
API, so they were never namespaced. The netlink API must ensure that
|
||||
at the very least NAPI instance belongs to the same netns as the owner
|
||||
of the genl sock.
|
||||
|
||||
napi_by_id() can become static now, but it needs to move because of
|
||||
dev_get_by_napi_id().
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 namespace 相关。具体来说，它涉及网络命名空间（netns）的隔离问题。NAPI（New API）实例在修复前可以被跨命名空间访问，这可能会破坏网络命名空间之间的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，这种漏洞可能会导致容器内的进程通过 netlink API 访问其他命名空间中的 NAPI 实例，从而可能影响其他容器或宿主机的网络功能。这种跨命名空间的访问会破坏容器之间的隔离性，可能导致敏感信息泄露或非授权的资源访问。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：** 满足条件 1 和 2，因此需要进行上述分析。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/21xxx/CVE-2025-21678.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
gtp: Destroy device along with udp socket's netns dismantle.
|
||||
|
||||
gtp_newlink() links the device to a list in dev_net(dev) instead of
|
||||
src_net, where a udp tunnel socket is created.
|
||||
|
||||
Even when src_net is removed, the device stays alive on dev_net(dev).
|
||||
Then, removing src_net triggers the splat below. [0]
|
||||
|
||||
In this example, gtp0 is created in ns2, and the udp socket is created
|
||||
in ns1.
|
||||
|
||||
ip netns add ns1
|
||||
ip netns add ns2
|
||||
ip -n ns1 link add netns ns2 name gtp0 type gtp role sgsn
|
||||
ip netns del ns1
|
||||
|
||||
Let's link the device to the socket's netns instead.
|
||||
|
||||
Now, gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() needs another netdev iteration to remove
|
||||
all gtp devices in the netns.
|
||||
|
||||
[0]:
|
||||
ref_tracker: net notrefcnt@000000003d6e7d05 has 1/2 users at
|
||||
sk_alloc (./include/net/net_namespace.h:345 net/core/sock.c:2236)
|
||||
inet_create (net/ipv4/af_inet.c:326 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:252)
|
||||
__sock_create (net/socket.c:1558)
|
||||
udp_sock_create4 (net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:18)
|
||||
gtp_create_sock (./include/net/udp_tunnel.h:59 drivers/net/gtp.c:1423)
|
||||
gtp_create_sockets (drivers/net/gtp.c:1447)
|
||||
gtp_newlink (drivers/net/gtp.c:1507)
|
||||
rtnl_newlink (net/core/rtnetlink.c:3786 net/core/rtnetlink.c:3897 net/core/rtnetlink.c:4012)
|
||||
rtnetlink_rcv_msg (net/core/rtnetlink.c:6922)
|
||||
netlink_rcv_skb (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2542)
|
||||
netlink_unicast (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1321 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1347)
|
||||
netlink_sendmsg (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1891)
|
||||
____sys_sendmsg (net/socket.c:711 net/socket.c:726 net/socket.c:2583)
|
||||
___sys_sendmsg (net/socket.c:2639)
|
||||
__sys_sendmsg (net/socket.c:2669)
|
||||
do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83)
|
||||
|
||||
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 60 at lib/ref_tracker.c:179 ref_tracker_dir_exit (lib/ref_tracker.c:179)
|
||||
Modules linked in:
|
||||
CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 60 Comm: kworker/u16:2 Not tainted 6.13.0-rc5-00147-g4c1224501e9d #5
|
||||
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.0-0-gd239552ce722-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
|
||||
Workqueue: netns cleanup_net
|
||||
RIP: 0010:ref_tracker_dir_exit (lib/ref_tracker.c:179)
|
||||
Code: 00 00 00 fc ff df 4d 8b 26 49 bd 00 01 00 00 00 00 ad de 4c 39 f5 0f 85 df 00 00 00 48 8b 74 24 08 48 89 df e8 a5 cc 12 02 90 <0f> 0b 90 48 8d 6b 44 be 04 00 00 00 48 89 ef e8 80 de 67 ff 48 89
|
||||
RSP: 0018:ff11000009a07b60 EFLAGS: 00010286
|
||||
RAX: 0000000000002bd3 RBX: ff1100000f4e1aa0 RCX: 1ffffffff0e40ac6
|
||||
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffffffff8423ee3c
|
||||
RBP: ff1100000f4e1af0 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: fffffbfff0e395ae
|
||||
R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000036001 R12: ff1100000f4e1af0
|
||||
R13: dead000000000100 R14: ff1100000f4e1af0 R15: dffffc0000000000
|
||||
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ff1100006ce80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
|
||||
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
|
||||
CR2: 00007f9b2464bd98 CR3: 0000000005286005 CR4: 0000000000771ef0
|
||||
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
|
||||
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe07f0 DR7: 0000000000000400
|
||||
PKRU: 55555554
|
||||
Call Trace:
|
||||
<TASK>
|
||||
? __warn (kernel/panic.c:748)
|
||||
? ref_tracker_dir_exit (lib/ref_tracker.c:179)
|
||||
? report_bug (lib/bug.c:201 lib/bug.c:219)
|
||||
? handle_bug (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:285)
|
||||
? exc_invalid_op (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:309 (discriminator 1))
|
||||
? asm_exc_invalid_op (./arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h:621)
|
||||
? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore (./arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:42 ./arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:97 ./arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:155 ./include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:151 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:194)
|
||||
? ref_tracker_dir_exit (lib/ref_tracker.c:179)
|
||||
? __pfx_ref_tracker_dir_exit (lib/ref_tracker.c:158)
|
||||
? kfree (mm/slub.c:4613 mm/slub.c:4761)
|
||||
net_free (net/core/net_namespace.c:476 net/core/net_namespace.c:467)
|
||||
cleanup_net (net/core/net_namespace.c:664 (discriminator 3))
|
||||
process_one_work (kernel/workqueue.c:3229)
|
||||
worker_thread (kernel/workqueue.c:3304 kernel/workqueue.c:3391
|
||||
---truncated---
|
||||
analysis: ### Analysis:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Relevance to namespace, cgroup, container, or isolation:**
|
||||
- The CVE description mentions `netns` (network namespaces), which is a key component of Linux namespaces used in containerization technologies like Docker. Specifically, it discusses the improper handling of network devices and UDP sockets across different network namespaces (`src_net` and `dev_net(dev)`).
|
||||
- The issue arises when a network namespace (`src_net`) is removed, but the associated device (`gtp0`) remains alive in another namespace (`dev_net(dev)`), leading to a reference count mismatch and a kernel warning.
|
||||
- This indicates that the vulnerability is directly related to namespaces, which are fundamental to container isolation.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Impact on containers or host:**
|
||||
- The described vulnerability does not appear to allow privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, or direct interaction between containers or with the host system. Instead, it is a bug in resource management within network namespaces.
|
||||
- However, if improperly handled, such issues could theoretically lead to instability in containers or the host if the network namespace teardown process is disrupted. In this specific case, the impact seems limited to a kernel warning due to a reference count mismatch.
|
||||
- While the vulnerability does not directly compromise container isolation, it could indirectly affect the stability of containers using network namespaces.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Conclusion:**
|
||||
- Based on the analysis, the CVE is related to namespaces and could have an indirect impact on container stability.
|
||||
- It does not explicitly allow breaking out of containers or affecting other containers or the host in a security-critical manner.
|
||||
|
||||
**Final Answer:**
|
||||
The CVE is related to namespaces and could indirectly impact container stability, but it does not directly compromise container isolation or allow affecting other containers or the host.
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/21xxx/CVE-2025-21771.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
sched_ext: Fix incorrect autogroup migration detection
|
||||
|
||||
scx_move_task() is called from sched_move_task() and tells the BPF scheduler
|
||||
that cgroup migration is being committed. sched_move_task() is used by both
|
||||
cgroup and autogroup migrations and scx_move_task() tried to filter out
|
||||
autogroup migrations by testing the destination cgroup and PF_EXITING but
|
||||
this is not enough. In fact, without explicitly tagging the thread which is
|
||||
doing the cgroup migration, there is no good way to tell apart
|
||||
scx_move_task() invocations for racing migration to the root cgroup and an
|
||||
autogroup migration.
|
||||
|
||||
This led to scx_move_task() incorrectly ignoring a migration from non-root
|
||||
cgroup to an autogroup of the root cgroup triggering the following warning:
|
||||
|
||||
WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 1 at kernel/sched/ext.c:3725 scx_cgroup_can_attach+0x196/0x340
|
||||
...
|
||||
Call Trace:
|
||||
<TASK>
|
||||
cgroup_migrate_execute+0x5b1/0x700
|
||||
cgroup_attach_task+0x296/0x400
|
||||
__cgroup_procs_write+0x128/0x140
|
||||
cgroup_procs_write+0x17/0x30
|
||||
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x141/0x1f0
|
||||
vfs_write+0x31d/0x4a0
|
||||
__x64_sys_write+0x72/0xf0
|
||||
do_syscall_64+0x82/0x160
|
||||
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
|
||||
|
||||
Fix it by adding an argument to sched_move_task() that indicates whether the
|
||||
moving is for a cgroup or autogroup migration. After the change,
|
||||
scx_move_task() is called only for cgroup migrations and renamed to
|
||||
scx_cgroup_move_task().
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与cgroup相关。描述中提到`scx_move_task()`函数用于处理cgroup和autogroup迁移，并且涉及cgroup迁移时的检测问题。cgroup是Linux内核中用于限制、控制和隔离进程组资源使用的重要机制，广泛应用于容器技术（如Docker）中以实现资源隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
从描述来看，该漏洞主要导致一个警告（WARNING）被触发，而不是直接的安全漏洞或资源泄露问题。虽然它涉及cgroup迁移的检测逻辑，但并未提到可能导致容器逃逸、资源滥用或其他容器的影响。因此，该问题更倾向于是一个功能性缺陷，而非安全漏洞，不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
条件1满足，条件2不满足，因此返回分析结果而非"N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/21xxx/CVE-2025-21834.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without filtering
|
||||
|
||||
When attaching uretprobes to processes running inside docker, the attached
|
||||
process is segfaulted when encountering the retprobe.
|
||||
|
||||
The reason is that now that uretprobe is a system call the default seccomp
|
||||
filters in docker block it as they only allow a specific set of known
|
||||
syscalls. This is true for other userspace applications which use seccomp
|
||||
to control their syscall surface.
|
||||
|
||||
Since uretprobe is a "kernel implementation detail" system call which is
|
||||
not used by userspace application code directly, it is impractical and
|
||||
there's very little point in forcing all userspace applications to
|
||||
explicitly allow it in order to avoid crashing tracked processes.
|
||||
|
||||
Pass this systemcall through seccomp without depending on configuration.
|
||||
|
||||
Note: uretprobe is currently only x86_64 and isn't expected to ever be
|
||||
supported in i386.
|
||||
|
||||
[kees: minimized changes for easier backporting, tweaked commit log]
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
是的，该CVE信息与容器和隔离相关。具体来说，问题出现在使用 `uretprobe` 调试工具时，当将其附加到运行在 Docker 容器中的进程时，由于默认的 seccomp 过滤器阻止了 `uretprobe` 系统调用，导致目标进程崩溃（段错误）。这表明问题涉及容器的默认安全机制（seccomp）以及其对系统调用的限制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
该漏洞本身并不会直接导致一个容器影响其他容器或宿主机。问题的核心在于调试工具 `uretprobe` 的系统调用被默认的 seccomp 配置所阻止，从而导致调试的目标进程崩溃。这种崩溃仅限于被调试的进程本身，并不会扩散到其他容器或宿主机。然而，如果用户明确配置 seccomp 规则以允许 `uretprobe`，可能会间接降低容器的安全性，但这并非此 CVE 的直接后果。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
条件1满足，条件2不满足，因此返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：是。
|
||||
- 是否会导致容器影响其他容器或宿主机：否。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/22xxx/CVE-2025-22089.json
|
||||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
RDMA/core: Don't expose hw_counters outside of init net namespace
|
||||
|
||||
Commit 467f432a521a ("RDMA/core: Split port and device counter sysfs
|
||||
attributes") accidentally almost exposed hw counters to non-init net
|
||||
namespaces. It didn't expose them fully, as an attempt to read any of
|
||||
those counters leads to a crash like this one:
|
||||
|
||||
[42021.807566] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000028
|
||||
[42021.814463] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
|
||||
[42021.819549] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
|
||||
[42021.824636] PGD 0 P4D 0
|
||||
[42021.827145] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
|
||||
[42021.830598] CPU: 82 PID: 2843922 Comm: switchto-defaul Kdump: loaded Tainted: G S W I XXX
|
||||
[42021.841697] Hardware name: XXX
|
||||
[42021.849619] RIP: 0010:hw_stat_device_show+0x1e/0x40 [ib_core]
|
||||
[42021.855362] Code: 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 f3 0f 1e fa 0f 1f 44 00 00 49 89 d0 4c 8b 5e 20 48 8b 8f b8 04 00 00 48 81 c7 f0 fa ff ff <48> 8b 41 28 48 29 ce 48 83 c6 d0 48 c1 ee 04 69 d6 ab aa aa aa 48
|
||||
[42021.873931] RSP: 0018:ffff97fe90f03da0 EFLAGS: 00010287
|
||||
[42021.879108] RAX: ffff9406988a8c60 RBX: ffff940e1072d438 RCX: 0000000000000000
|
||||
[42021.886169] RDX: ffff94085f1aa000 RSI: ffff93c6cbbdbcb0 RDI: ffff940c7517aef0
|
||||
[42021.893230] RBP: ffff97fe90f03e70 R08: ffff94085f1aa000 R09: 0000000000000000
|
||||
[42021.900294] R10: ffff94085f1aa000 R11: ffffffffc0775680 R12: ffffffff87ca2530
|
||||
[42021.907355] R13: ffff940651602840 R14: ffff93c6cbbdbcb0 R15: ffff94085f1aa000
|
||||
[42021.914418] FS: 00007fda1a3b9700(0000) GS:ffff94453fb80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
|
||||
[42021.922423] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
|
||||
[42021.928130] CR2: 0000000000000028 CR3: 00000042dcfb8003 CR4: 00000000003726f0
|
||||
[42021.935194] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
|
||||
[42021.942257] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
|
||||
[42021.949324] Call Trace:
|
||||
[42021.951756] <TASK>
|
||||
[42021.953842] [<ffffffff86c58674>] ? show_regs+0x64/0x70
|
||||
[42021.959030] [<ffffffff86c58468>] ? __die+0x78/0xc0
|
||||
[42021.963874] [<ffffffff86c9ef75>] ? page_fault_oops+0x2b5/0x3b0
|
||||
[42021.969749] [<ffffffff87674b92>] ? exc_page_fault+0x1a2/0x3c0
|
||||
[42021.975549] [<ffffffff87801326>] ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30
|
||||
[42021.981517] [<ffffffffc0775680>] ? __pfx_show_hw_stats+0x10/0x10 [ib_core]
|
||||
[42021.988482] [<ffffffffc077564e>] ? hw_stat_device_show+0x1e/0x40 [ib_core]
|
||||
[42021.995438] [<ffffffff86ac7f8e>] dev_attr_show+0x1e/0x50
|
||||
[42022.000803] [<ffffffff86a3eeb1>] sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x81/0xe0
|
||||
[42022.006508] [<ffffffff86a11134>] seq_read_iter+0xf4/0x410
|
||||
[42022.011954] [<ffffffff869f4b2e>] vfs_read+0x16e/0x2f0
|
||||
[42022.017058] [<ffffffff869f50ee>] ksys_read+0x6e/0xe0
|
||||
[42022.022073] [<ffffffff8766f1ca>] do_syscall_64+0x6a/0xa0
|
||||
[42022.027441] [<ffffffff8780013b>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
|
||||
|
||||
The problem can be reproduced using the following steps:
|
||||
ip netns add foo
|
||||
ip netns exec foo bash
|
||||
cat /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/hw_counters/*
|
||||
|
||||
The panic occurs because of casting the device pointer into an
|
||||
ib_device pointer using container_of() in hw_stat_device_show() is
|
||||
wrong and leads to a memory corruption.
|
||||
|
||||
However the real problem is that hw counters should never been exposed
|
||||
outside of the non-init net namespace.
|
||||
|
||||
Fix this by saving the index of the corresponding attribute group
|
||||
(it might be 1 or 2 depending on the presence of driver-specific
|
||||
attributes) and zeroing the pointer to hw_counters group for compat
|
||||
devices during the initialization.
|
||||
|
||||
With this fix applied hw_counters are not available in a non-init
|
||||
net namespace:
|
||||
find /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/ -name hw_counters
|
||||
/sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/ports/1/hw_counters
|
||||
/sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/ports/2/hw_counters
|
||||
/sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/hw_counters
|
||||
|
||||
ip netns add foo
|
||||
ip netns exec foo bash
|
||||
find /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/ -name hw_counters
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**
|
||||
- 该 CVE 涉及到网络命名空间（net namespace）的问题。具体来说，硬件计数器（hw_counters）被错误地暴露在非初始网络命名空间中，这可能导致内存损坏或崩溃。因此，这个漏洞与 Linux 命名空间（namespace）直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker）运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**
|
||||
- 由于问题涉及到网络命名空间，而容器通常使用独立的网络命名空间来实现网络隔离，如果 hw_counters 被错误地暴露给非初始网络命名空间，攻击者可能利用此漏洞访问或修改宿主机或其他容器的资源。尽管当前的修复已经阻止了 hw_counters 在非初始网络命名空间中的访问，但在未修复的情况下，这种行为可能会导致容器逃逸或对宿主机产生影响。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**
|
||||
- 条件 1 和条件 2 都满足，因此返回以下分析结果：
|
||||
- 该 CVE 与 namespace 相关，且可能在特定情况下影响容器的隔离性，导致容器逃逸或影响宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/23xxx/CVE-2025-23211.json
|
||||
Tandoor Recipes is an application for managing recipes, planning meals, and building shopping lists. A Jinja2 SSTI vulnerability allows any user to execute commands on the server. In the case of the provided Docker Compose file as root. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.5.24.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离机制无直接关系。问题的核心是一个 Jinja2 SSTI（Server-Side Template Injection）漏洞，它允许用户在服务器上执行命令。
|
||||
|
||||
2. 尽管这是一个命令执行漏洞，并且提到 Docker Compose 文件，但它本身并不直接影响容器的隔离性或导致一个容器影响其他容器或宿主机。此漏洞的影响范围取决于运行 Tandoor Recipes 应用程序的容器权限配置。如果容器以 root 用户运行并且没有适当的隔离措施，攻击者可能利用该漏洞突破容器并影响宿主机。但这更多是由于错误的容器配置（例如以 root 运行容器）而非漏洞本身的特性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. 综上所述，虽然此漏洞严重，但其本质是一个应用程序层面的问题，而不是容器或隔离机制的漏洞。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：N/A**
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/27xxx/CVE-2025-27519.json
|
||||
Cognita is a RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) Framework for building modular, open source applications for production by TrueFoundry. A path traversal issue exists at /v1/internal/upload-to-local-directory which is enabled when the Local env variable is set to true, such as when Cognita is setup using Docker. Because the docker environment sets up the backend uvicorn server with auto reload enabled, when an attacker overwrites the /app/backend/__init__.py file, the file will automatically be reloaded and executed. This allows an attacker to get remote code execution in the context of the Docker container. This vulnerability is fixed in commit a78bd065e05a1b30a53a3386cc02e08c317d2243.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到 Cognita 在 Docker 环境中运行时存在漏洞。具体来说，当 `Local` 环境变量设置为 `true` 时，路径遍历问题会导致攻击者能够覆盖 `/app/backend/__init__.py` 文件，并触发远程代码执行 (RCE)。这表明该问题与容器（Docker）的运行环境直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
根据描述，攻击者可以利用此漏洞在容器内实现远程代码执行。然而，这种 RCE 的影响范围仅限于当前容器上下文。没有明确提到该漏洞能够突破容器隔离机制（如 namespace 或 cgroup），进而影响其他容器或宿主机。因此，从现有信息来看，该漏洞不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机，除非攻击者进一步利用其他漏洞或配置错误来逃逸容器。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论：**
|
||||
- 满足条件 1（与容器相关）。
|
||||
- 不满足条件 2（不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机）。
|
||||
|
||||
**最终结果：**
|
||||
N/A
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/27xxx/CVE-2025-27615.json
|
||||
umatiGateway is software for connecting OPC Unified Architecture servers with an MQTT broker utilizing JSON messages. The user interface may possibly be publicly accessible with umatiGateway's provided docker-compose file. With this access, the configuration can be viewed and altered. Commit 5d81a3412bc0051754a3095d89a06d6d743f2b16 uses `127.0.0.1:8080:8080` to limit access to the local network. For those who are unable to use this proposed patch, a firewall on Port 8080 may block remote access, but the workaround may not be perfect because Docker may also bypass a firewall by its iptable based rules for port forwarding.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，此 CVE 信息与容器相关。具体来说，问题出现在 umatiGateway 提供的 `docker-compose` 文件中，该文件配置了容器的服务暴露方式。由于容器的用户界面可能被公开访问，这表明容器的网络配置或隔离设置存在问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
有可能。如果攻击者通过公开访问的用户界面修改了配置，可能会导致以下后果：
|
||||
- 攻击者可以查看或篡改敏感配置，从而影响容器的正常运行。
|
||||
- 如果容器以不安全的方式配置了网络（例如，绕过防火墙规则），攻击者可能利用此漏洞进一步访问宿主机或其他容器。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，此 CVE 可能会影响容器的隔离性，并间接影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2，存在与容器隔离相关的安全风险。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/2xxx/CVE-2025-2312.json
|
||||
A flaw was found in cifs-utils. When trying to obtain Kerberos credentials, the cifs.upcall program from the cifs-utils package makes an upcall to the wrong namespace in containerized environments. This issue may lead to disclosing sensitive data from the host's Kerberos credentials cache.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息明确提到问题发生在容器化环境中，并且涉及命名空间（namespace）的错误使用。具体来说，`cifs.upcall` 程序在容器中尝试获取 Kerberos 凭据时，错误地向上调用到了主机的命名空间，而不是容器的命名空间。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器内的程序访问到宿主机的 Kerberos 凭据缓存，从而泄露敏感数据。这表明容器的隔离性被破坏，攻击者可能利用此漏洞从容器内获取宿主机的敏感信息。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 和条件 2 均满足，因此返回上述分析内容。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/30xxx/CVE-2025-30162.json
|
||||
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. For Cilium users who use Gateway API for Ingress for some services and use LB-IPAM or BGP for LB Service implementation and use network policies to block egress traffic from workloads in a namespace to workloads in other namespaces, egress traffic from workloads covered by such network policies to LoadBalancers configured by `Gateway` resources will incorrectly be allowed. LoadBalancer resources not deployed via a Gateway API configuration are not affected by this issue. This issue affects: Cilium v1.15 between v1.15.0 and v1.15.14 inclusive, v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.7 inclusive, and v1.17 between v1.17.0 and v1.17.1 inclusive. This issue is fixed in Cilium v1.15.15, v1.16.8, and v1.17.2. A Clusterwide Cilium Network Policy can be used to work around this issue for users who are unable to upgrade.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，这个 CVE 信息与 namespace 和容器隔离相关。问题描述中提到网络策略（network policies）用于阻止某个命名空间（namespace）中的工作负载（workloads）到其他命名空间中的工作负载的出口流量（egress traffic）。这表明它涉及到基于命名空间的网络隔离。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
不会直接影响其他容器或宿主机。此漏洞导致的问题是特定的网络策略未能正确阻止从某些工作负载到通过 `Gateway` 资源配置的 LoadBalancer 的出口流量。这种行为可能会破坏预期的网络隔离，但并不会直接导致容器逃逸或影响宿主机的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
3. **结论**：
|
||||
条件 1 满足，条件 2 不满足，因此返回分析结果而不是 "N/A"。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/30xxx/CVE-2025-30206.json
|
||||
Dpanel is a Docker visualization panel system which provides complete Docker management functions. The Dpanel service contains a hardcoded JWT secret in its default configuration, allowing attackers to generate valid JWT tokens and compromise the host machine. This security flaw allows attackers to analyze the source code, discover the embedded secret, and craft legitimate JWT tokens. By forging these tokens, an attacker can successfully bypass authentication mechanisms, impersonate privileged users, and gain unauthorized administrative access. Consequently, this enables full control over the host machine, potentially leading to severe consequences such as sensitive data exposure, unauthorized command execution, privilege escalation, or further lateral movement within the network environment. This issue is patched in version 1.6.1. A workaround for this vulnerability involves replacing the hardcoded secret with a securely generated value and load it from secure configuration storage.
|
||||
analysis: 1. 该 CVE 信息与 namespace、cgroup、container 或容器隔离机制无直接关系。问题的核心是 Dpanel 服务中硬编码的 JWT 密钥，这属于应用层的安全配置问题，而非容器或隔离技术本身的漏洞。
|
||||
2. 该 CVE 可能会导致攻击者在成功利用后影响宿主机，但其本身并不会直接影响其他容器。由于攻击者可以通过伪造的 JWT 令牌获得对 Dpanel 的完全控制，而 Dpanel 是一个用于管理 Docker 的工具，因此攻击者可能间接通过 Dpanel 操控宿主机上的其他容器或宿主机本身。
|
||||
|
||||
结论：满足条件 2，返回分析结果。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/32xxx/CVE-2025-32754.json
|
||||
In jenkins/ssh-agent Docker images 6.11.1 and earlier, SSH host keys are generated on image creation for images based on Debian, causing all containers based on images of the same version use the same SSH host keys, allowing attackers able to insert themselves into the network path between the SSH client (typically the Jenkins controller) and SSH build agent to impersonate the latter.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关：**
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器和隔离相关。问题发生在基于 Debian 的 Jenkins/ssh-agent Docker 镜像中，SSH 主机密钥在镜像创建时生成，而不是在容器启动时动态生成。这导致所有基于相同版本镜像的容器共享相同的 SSH 主机密钥，破坏了容器之间的隔离性。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机：**
|
||||
是的，此漏洞可能导致容器影响其他容器的安全性。由于所有容器共享相同的 SSH 主机密钥，攻击者可以通过网络插入攻击（如中间人攻击）冒充 SSH 构建代理，从而破坏通信的安全性。虽然它本身不会直接影响宿主机，但通过破坏容器间的通信安全，可能会间接影响宿主机上的其他服务或资源。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，条件 1 和 2 均满足。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/32xxx/CVE-2025-32755.json
|
||||
In jenkins/ssh-slave Docker images based on Debian, SSH host keys are generated on image creation for images based on Debian, causing all containers based on images of the same version use the same SSH host keys, allowing attackers able to insert themselves into the network path between the SSH client (typically the Jenkins controller) and SSH build agent to impersonate the latter.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE明确提到了Docker镜像和容器。问题发生在基于Debian的`jenkins/ssh-slave` Docker镜像中，由于SSH主机密钥在镜像构建时生成，所有基于同一版本镜像创建的容器共享相同的SSH主机密钥。这表明该问题与容器技术及其隔离机制直接相关。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞会导致安全风险。由于所有基于相同镜像的容器共享相同的SSH主机密钥，攻击者可以通过网络中间人攻击（MITM）冒充SSH构建代理，从而破坏容器之间的通信安全性。虽然此漏洞本身不会直接影响宿主机，但它会削弱容器间的隔离性，使得攻击者能够更容易地渗透到其他容器或整个CI/CD管道中。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件1和条件2，分析完毕。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/32xxx/CVE-2025-32955.json
|
||||
Harden-Runner is a CI/CD security agent that works like an EDR for GitHub Actions runners. Versions from 0.12.0 to before 2.12.0 are vulnerable to `disable-sudo` bypass. Harden-Runner includes a policy option `disable-sudo` to prevent the GitHub Actions runner user from using sudo. This is implemented by removing the runner user from the sudoers file. However, this control can be bypassed as the runner user, being part of the docker group, can interact with the Docker daemon to launch privileged containers or access the host filesystem. This allows the attacker to regain root access or restore the sudoers file, effectively bypassing the restriction. This issue has been patched in version 2.12.0.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **分析是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 信息与容器和隔离相关。问题的核心在于 Harden-Runner 的 `disable-sudo` 功能被绕过，原因是 GitHub Actions 运行器用户属于 `docker` 组，能够与 Docker 守护进程交互，从而启动特权容器或访问宿主机文件系统。这表明问题涉及容器技术以及其与宿主机之间的隔离机制。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **分析是否会导致容器（如 Docker）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器运行时影响宿主机。由于攻击者可以利用 Docker 守护进程启动特权容器或直接访问宿主机文件系统，这种行为可能会破坏容器与宿主机之间的隔离性，进而允许攻击者获得宿主机的 root 权限或恢复 `sudoers` 文件，最终完全控制宿主机。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/3xxx/CVE-2025-3047.json
|
||||
When running the AWS Serverless Application Model Command Line Interface (SAM CLI) build process with Docker and symlinks are included in the build files, the container environment allows a user to access privileged files on the host by leveraging the elevated permissions granted to the tool. A user could leverage the elevated permissions to access restricted files via symlinks and copy them to a more permissive location on the container.
|
||||
|
||||
Users should upgrade to v1.133.0 or newer and ensure any forked or derivative code is patched to incorporate the new fixes.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该CVE与容器和隔离相关。问题发生在使用AWS SAM CLI通过Docker构建应用的过程中，涉及容器环境中的权限提升和文件访问问题。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如Docker等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，该漏洞可能导致容器内的用户通过符号链接（symlinks）访问宿主机上的特权文件。这种行为破坏了容器与宿主机之间的隔离性，可能会对宿主机或其他共享宿主机资源的容器造成影响。
|
||||
|
||||
因此，该CVE满足条件1和条件2。
|
||||
|
||||
cve: ./data/2025/3xxx/CVE-2025-3048.json
|
||||
After completing a build with AWS Serverless Application Model Command Line Interface (SAM CLI) which include symlinks, the content of those symlinks are copied to the cache of the local workspace as regular files or directories. As a result, a user who does not have access to those symlinks outside of the Docker container would now have access via the local workspace.
|
||||
|
||||
Users should upgrade to version 1.134.0 and ensure any forked or derivative code is patched to incorporate the new fixes. After upgrading, users must re-build their applications using the sam build --use-container to update the symlinks.
|
||||
analysis: 1. **是否与 namespace、cgroup、container 或者容器、隔离相关**：
|
||||
是的，该 CVE 与容器相关。问题描述中明确提到 AWS SAM CLI 在构建过程中将符号链接（symlinks）的内容复制到本地工作区缓存中，并且这些内容在 Docker 容器内被处理。
|
||||
|
||||
2. **是否会导致容器（例如 Docker 等）在运行时影响其他容器或宿主机**：
|
||||
是的，可能会对隔离性造成影响。虽然该漏洞本身不会直接破坏容器的隔离机制（如 namespace 或 cgroup），但它导致了原本无法访问的符号链接内容可以通过容器内的操作暴露到本地工作区。这可能使得攻击者通过特定方式获取到原本受限的文件内容，从而间接影响宿主机或其他容器的安全性。
|
||||
|
||||
**结论**：满足条件 1 和 2。
|
||||
6645
general_result/analysis_result.log
Normal file
6645
general_result/analysis_result.log
Normal file
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
82
info_reveal_ai_analysis.py
Normal file
82
info_reveal_ai_analysis.py
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
||||
# 分析每个CVE源自哪个应用程序、什么原因、什么后果等信息
|
||||
|
||||
from os import truncate
|
||||
import re
|
||||
import json
|
||||
from openai import OpenAI
|
||||
from typing import Dict, List, Any
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def process_result(data: Any) -> str:
|
||||
# target_key = "choices.0.message.content"
|
||||
parts = ["choices", "0", "message", "content"]
|
||||
try:
|
||||
for part in parts:
|
||||
if isinstance(data, list):
|
||||
data = data[int(part)]
|
||||
else:
|
||||
data = data.get(part, None)
|
||||
if data is None:
|
||||
break
|
||||
return data
|
||||
except (KeyError, IndexError, TypeError):
|
||||
return "N/A"
|
||||
return "N/A"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def analyze_with_ai(data: str) -> str:
|
||||
prompt = """
|
||||
你是一个计算机安全领域的专家，能够更具CVE描述分析出CVE产生于哪个程序、有何影响后果等信息。
|
||||
下面我会发给你一段文本，第一行是CVE的编号与文件位置信息，后续是这个CVE的详细描述。
|
||||
请分析我发送给你的CVE详细描述内容，并进行分析，我有三个分析要求：
|
||||
1. 分析这个CVE信息是否与namespace、cgroup、container或者容器、隔离相关；
|
||||
2. 分析这个CVE是否会导致容器，例如Docker等，在运行时会影响其他容器或宿主机；
|
||||
3. 如果条件1、2全部不满足，直接返回“N/A”，不需要附带任何信息。
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
client = OpenAI(
|
||||
api_key="sk-5ec7751941974a9cb5855f746fe45a62",
|
||||
base_url="https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1",
|
||||
)
|
||||
try:
|
||||
completion = client.chat.completions.create(
|
||||
# 模型列表：https://help.aliyun.com/zh/model-studio/getting-started/models
|
||||
model="qwen-plus",
|
||||
messages=[
|
||||
{"role": "system", "content": prompt},
|
||||
{"role": "user", "content": data},
|
||||
],
|
||||
# Qwen3模型通过enable_thinking参数控制思考过程（开源版默认True，商业版默认False）
|
||||
# 使用Qwen3开源版模型时，若未启用流式输出，请将下行取消注释，否则会报错
|
||||
# extra_body={"enable_thinking": False},
|
||||
)
|
||||
return process_result(json.loads(completion.model_dump_json()))
|
||||
except Exception as e:
|
||||
print(f"调用大模型失败: {str(e)}")
|
||||
return "N/A"
|
||||
return "N/A"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if __name__ == "__main__":
|
||||
pattern = r"\./data/.*x/CVE.*?\.json"
|
||||
regex = re.compile(pattern)
|
||||
|
||||
with open("keyword_filter_11-25.log", "r", encoding="utf-8") as file:
|
||||
text = file.read()
|
||||
matches = list(regex.finditer(text))
|
||||
|
||||
log = open("./info_reveal_result/analysis_result.log", "w", encoding="utf-8")
|
||||
|
||||
# 如果没有找到任何匹配项
|
||||
if not matches:
|
||||
print("No match found.")
|
||||
else:
|
||||
for i in range(len(matches)):
|
||||
start = matches[i].start()
|
||||
# 如果不是最后一个匹配项，则end是下一个匹配项的起始位置；否则为文本末尾
|
||||
end = matches[i + 1].start() if i + 1 < len(matches) else len(text)
|
||||
block = text[start:end].strip()
|
||||
ans = analyze_with_ai(block)
|
||||
if ans == "N/A":
|
||||
continue
|
||||
log.write(f"cve: {block}, analysis: {ans}\n\n")
|
||||
91
keyword_filter.py
Normal file
91
keyword_filter.py
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
|
||||
import os
|
||||
import json
|
||||
import glob
|
||||
from typing import Dict, List, Any
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class ContentParser:
|
||||
def __init__(
|
||||
self,
|
||||
target_keys: str,
|
||||
):
|
||||
"""
|
||||
初始化解析器
|
||||
:param target_keys: 需要提取的目标键列表
|
||||
:param api_key: 大模型API密钥
|
||||
:param model: 使用的大模型名称
|
||||
"""
|
||||
self.target_keys = target_keys
|
||||
self.log = open("name.log", "w", encoding="utf-8")
|
||||
|
||||
def process_directory(self, directory: str, recursive: bool = True):
|
||||
"""
|
||||
处理目录中的所有文件
|
||||
:param directory: 要处理的目录路径
|
||||
:param recursive: 是否递归处理子目录
|
||||
"""
|
||||
results = []
|
||||
|
||||
# 遍历目录
|
||||
pattern = "**/*" if recursive else "*"
|
||||
for filepath in glob.glob(
|
||||
os.path.join(directory, pattern), recursive=recursive
|
||||
):
|
||||
if os.path.isfile(filepath):
|
||||
_, ext = os.path.splitext(filepath)
|
||||
if ext == ".json":
|
||||
try:
|
||||
result = self._process_json(filepath)
|
||||
if result:
|
||||
results.append({"file": filepath, "description": result})
|
||||
if self._check_related(result):
|
||||
self.log.write(f"{filepath}\n{result}\n\n")
|
||||
# self._analyze_with_ai(result)
|
||||
except Exception as e:
|
||||
print(f"处理文件 {filepath} 时出错: {str(e)}")
|
||||
return
|
||||
|
||||
def _process_json(self, filepath: str) -> str:
|
||||
"""处理JSON文件"""
|
||||
with open(filepath, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f:
|
||||
data = json.load(f)
|
||||
return self._extract_values(data)
|
||||
|
||||
def _extract_values(self, data: Dict) -> str:
|
||||
"""从数据中提取目标值，支持嵌套查询"""
|
||||
parts = self.target_keys.split(".")
|
||||
value = data
|
||||
try:
|
||||
for part in parts:
|
||||
if isinstance(value, list):
|
||||
value = value[int(part)]
|
||||
else:
|
||||
value = value.get(part, None)
|
||||
if value is None:
|
||||
break
|
||||
return value.__str__()
|
||||
except (KeyError, IndexError, TypeError):
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
|
||||
def _check_related(self, text: str) -> bool:
|
||||
keywords = ["docker", "namespace", "cgroup"]
|
||||
text = text.lower()
|
||||
return any(keyword in text for keyword in keywords)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if __name__ == "__main__":
|
||||
# 配置参数
|
||||
CONFIG = {
|
||||
"target_keys": "containers.cna.descriptions.0.value",
|
||||
"directory": "./data",
|
||||
"recursive": True,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
# 创建解析器实例
|
||||
parser = ContentParser(target_keys=CONFIG["target_keys"])
|
||||
|
||||
# 开始处理
|
||||
parser.process_directory(
|
||||
directory=CONFIG["directory"], recursive=CONFIG["recursive"]
|
||||
)
|
||||
8123
keyword_filter_11-25.log
Normal file
8123
keyword_filter_11-25.log
Normal file
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
7256
keyword_filter_21-25.log
Normal file
7256
keyword_filter_21-25.log
Normal file
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
Reference in New Issue
Block a user