Full Docker Breakout Exploit(unit42.paloaltonetworks.com)
unit42.paloaltonetworks.com
Full Docker Breakout Exploit
https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/docker-patched-the-most-severe-copy-vulnerability-to-date-with-cve-2019-14271/
3 comments
Hi, OP here.
You're correct on the symlink point, they're the reason chrooting is needed, as they caused several vulnerabilities in Docker and Podman cp in the past. The good news is that there is a new syscall designed to solve that exact problem, openat2(), which you'll be able use to restrict path resolution when opening files (https://lwn.net/Articles/796868/). It will make helper processes and chrooting to the container redundant.
Running helper processes entirely in the container is actually quite problematic, since they will be visible to proceses in the container that could try to affect their output. This solution though is used in Kubernetes, and it resulted in 4 vulnerabilities in the last year. Ariel Zelivansky and I just gave a talk on the security of the cp command in KubeCon, you can check out the slides here (https://kccncna19.sched.com/event/d229f00f143036f7c488144e60...) for more information.
As for the fix, I'm pretty sure newer Golang versions stopped dynamiclly loading libraries at runtime, which is nice. I Should have included that in the post but forgot.
Running helper processes entirely in the container is actually quite problematic, since they will be visible to proceses in the container that could try to affect their output. This solution though is used in Kubernetes, and it resulted in 4 vulnerabilities in the last year. Ariel Zelivansky and I just gave a talk on the security of the cp command in KubeCon, you can check out the slides here (https://kccncna19.sched.com/event/d229f00f143036f7c488144e60...) for more information.
As for the fix, I'm pretty sure newer Golang versions stopped dynamiclly loading libraries at runtime, which is nice. I Should have included that in the post but forgot.
Wouldn't you have the option of running the helper process within the mount namespace but not the process namespace of the container?
Regardless, openat2 looks like a much better solution. I hope it's backported to LTS distros so I can start relying on it before 2035...
Regardless, openat2 looks like a much better solution. I hope it's backported to LTS distros so I can start relying on it before 2035...
That's an option, an actually what LXD does. It's better then just chrooting, though in the case of this vulnerability even if docker-tar entered the mount NS, the exploit will still work.
I was never under the impression that docker was secure or even claimed to have security (do they?). I feel this is a common belief.
For me Docker felt halfway between VirtualBox and Parallels. And VirtualBox had shared folder breakout exploits as far back as 2007.
https://www.coresecurity.com/content/advisory-vmware
For me Docker felt halfway between VirtualBox and Parallels. And VirtualBox had shared folder breakout exploits as far back as 2007.
https://www.coresecurity.com/content/advisory-vmware
A PoC for CVE-2019-14271, which can be exploited by a malicious container to gain root code execution on the host.
This seems like a band aid, not a proper fix. docker-tar is still run, chrooted into the untrusted container root directory, but in the host's namespace (i.e., ubcontained). As we all know, chroot on Linux is not a security barrier!
I think it would be better to run one docker-tar entirely inside the container, writing to a socket; with another docker-tar on the host reading from the other end of the socket.
Taking a step back though I have to ask why 'docker cp' has to execute anything at all. I would not expect that copying files would need to do anything other than open files within the container and read them. I suppose this would only be possible if the open syscall had a way to prevent symlinks being followed (O_NOFOLLOW is not sufficient because it only applies to the final file in the path, not any parent directories).