diff --git a/deploy/agent_morpheus_client.yaml b/deploy/agent_morpheus_client.yaml index 9b969b84..f1bdca7f 100644 --- a/deploy/agent_morpheus_client.yaml +++ b/deploy/agent_morpheus_client.yaml @@ -86,6 +86,10 @@ spec: key: mongodb.dbname - name: DOCKER_CONFIG value: /tmp/.docker + - name: NAMESPACE + valueFrom: + fieldRef: + fieldPath: metadata.namespace - name: GITHUB_TOKEN valueFrom: secretKeyRef: diff --git a/src/main/java/com/redhat/ecosystemappeng/morpheus/rest/ReportEndpoint.java b/src/main/java/com/redhat/ecosystemappeng/morpheus/rest/ReportEndpoint.java index ed22e6f0..ea534f8b 100644 --- a/src/main/java/com/redhat/ecosystemappeng/morpheus/rest/ReportEndpoint.java +++ b/src/main/java/com/redhat/ecosystemappeng/morpheus/rest/ReportEndpoint.java @@ -228,8 +228,10 @@ public Response receive( "image": {... } }, - "output": [... - ], + "output": { + "analysis": [...], + "vex": null | {...} + }, "info": {... }, "metadata": {... @@ -304,8 +306,10 @@ public Response list( "image": {... } }, - "output": [... - ], + "output": { + "analysis": [...], + "vex": null | {...} + }, "info": {... }, "metadata": {... diff --git a/src/main/java/com/redhat/ecosystemappeng/morpheus/service/ReportRepositoryService.java b/src/main/java/com/redhat/ecosystemappeng/morpheus/service/ReportRepositoryService.java index 115e5bb7..a92fb965 100644 --- a/src/main/java/com/redhat/ecosystemappeng/morpheus/service/ReportRepositoryService.java +++ b/src/main/java/com/redhat/ecosystemappeng/morpheus/service/ReportRepositoryService.java @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ import org.jboss.logging.Logger; import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonProcessingException; -import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.type.TypeReference; import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.JsonMappingException; import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.JsonNode; import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ObjectMapper; @@ -106,13 +105,14 @@ public Report toReport(Document doc) { var input = doc.get("input", Document.class); var scan = input.get("scan", Document.class); var image = input.get("image", Document.class); - var output = doc.getList("output", Document.class); + var output = doc.get("output", Document.class); + var analysis = Objects.nonNull(output) ? output.getList("analysis", Document.class) : null; var metadata = extractMetadata(doc); var vulnIds = new HashSet(); - if (Objects.nonNull(output)) { - output.forEach(o -> { - var vulnId = o.getString("vuln_id"); - var justification = o.get("justification", Document.class); + if (Objects.nonNull(analysis)) { + analysis.forEach(a -> { + var vulnId = a.getString("vuln_id"); + var justification = a.get("justification", Document.class); vulnIds.add(new VulnResult(vulnId, new Justification(justification.getString("status"), justification.getString("label")))); @@ -171,15 +171,12 @@ public void updateWithOutput(List ids, JsonNode report) Set productIds = getProductId(ids); - List outputDocs = objectMapper.readValue(report.get("output").toPrettyString(), - new TypeReference>() { - - }); + Document outputDoc = objectMapper.readValue(report.get("output").toPrettyString(), Document.class); var scan = report.get("input").get("scan").toPrettyString(); var info = report.get("info").toPrettyString(); var updates = Updates.combine(Updates.set("input.scan", Document.parse(scan)), Updates.set("info", Document.parse(info)), - Updates.set("output", outputDocs), + Updates.set("output", outputDoc), Updates.unset("error")); var bulk = ids.stream() .map(id -> new UpdateOneModel(Filters.eq(RepositoryConstants.ID_KEY, new ObjectId(id)), updates)) @@ -254,7 +251,7 @@ public List findByName(String name) { "completedAt", "input.scan.completed_at", "submittedAt", "metadata.submitted_at", "name", "input.scan.id", - "vuln_id", "output.vuln_id"); + "vuln_id", "output.analysis.vuln_id"); public PaginatedResult list(Map queryFilter, List sortFields, Pagination pagination) { @@ -330,14 +327,15 @@ public ProductReportsSummary getProductSummaryData(String productId) { } } - Object outputObj = doc.get("output"); - if (outputObj instanceof List outputList) { - for (Object output : outputList) { - if (output instanceof org.bson.Document outputDoc) { - String cve = outputDoc.getString("vuln_id"); + Document outputDoc = doc.get("output", Document.class); + Object analysisObj = Objects.nonNull(outputDoc) ? outputDoc.get("analysis") : null; + if (analysisObj instanceof List analysisList) { + for (Object analysis : analysisList) { + if (analysis instanceof org.bson.Document analysisDoc) { + String cve = analysisDoc.getString("vuln_id"); if (cve != null && !cve.isEmpty()) { Set justifications = cveSet.computeIfAbsent(cve, k -> new HashSet<>()); - Object justificationObj = outputDoc.get("justification"); + Object justificationObj = analysisDoc.get("justification"); if (justificationObj instanceof org.bson.Document justificationDoc) { String status = justificationDoc.getString("status"); String label = justificationDoc.getString("label"); diff --git a/src/main/resources/application.properties b/src/main/resources/application.properties index 9f9ba8c3..8d3ca111 100644 --- a/src/main/resources/application.properties +++ b/src/main/resources/application.properties @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ quarkus.rest-client.github.headers.Authorization=Bearer ${GITHUB_TOKEN} quarkus.rest-client.github.headers.User-Agent=exploit-iq quarkus.rest-client.morpheus.url=https://agent-morpheus:8080/generate %dev.quarkus.rest-client.morpheus.url=http://localhost:26466/generate -quarkus.rest-client.component-syncer.url=http://job-sink.knative-eventing.svc.cluster.local/exploit-iq-nat/component-syncer +quarkus.rest-client.component-syncer.url=http://job-sink.knative-eventing.svc.cluster.local/${NAMESPACE}/component-syncer # When building the image for production environment, need to set INCLUDE_SWAGGER_UI=false in the build environment. # As this is a build time property, and not a runtime property ( cannot changed during runtime by just by changing the env var). quarkus.swagger-ui.always-include=${INCLUDE_SWAGGER_UI:true} diff --git a/src/main/webui/src/Report.jsx b/src/main/webui/src/Report.jsx index 4e592029..a4f6c50d 100644 --- a/src/main/webui/src/Report.jsx +++ b/src/main/webui/src/Report.jsx @@ -5,10 +5,14 @@ import { Breadcrumb, BreadcrumbItem, Button, + CodeBlock, + CodeBlockCode, Divider, EmptyState, EmptyStateBody, + ExpandableSection, Flex, + FlexItem, Grid, GridItem, PageSection, @@ -42,6 +46,7 @@ export default function Report() { const [errorReport, setErrorReport] = React.useState({}); const [comments, setComments] = React.useState({}); const [name, setName] = React.useState(); + const [vexExpanded, setVexExpanded] = React.useState(false); const navigate = useNavigate(); React.useEffect(() => { @@ -56,14 +61,15 @@ export default function Report() { .catch(e => setErrorReport(e)); }, []); - const onDownload = () => { + const onDownload = (data, filename) => { const element = document.createElement("a"); - const file = new Blob([JSON.stringify(report)], {type: 'application/json'}); + const file = new Blob([JSON.stringify(data, null, 2)], {type: 'application/json'}); element.href = URL.createObjectURL(file); - element.download = `${name}.json`; + element.download = filename; document.body.appendChild(element); element.click(); - } + document.body.removeChild(element); // cleanup + }; const time_meta_fields = [ "submitted_at", @@ -118,8 +124,8 @@ export default function Report() { lines.push(`Image: ${report.input.image.name}`); lines.push(''); - if (report.output) { - report.output.forEach(vuln => { + if (report.output?.analysis) { + report.output.analysis.forEach(vuln => { lines.push(`Vulnerability: ${vuln.vuln_id}`); lines.push(""); if (vuln.justification?.label) { @@ -188,7 +194,7 @@ export default function Report() { } const image = report.input.image - const output = report.output; + const analysis = report.output?.analysis; let metadata = []; let timestamps = []; if (report.metadata !== undefined) { @@ -238,7 +244,7 @@ export default function Report() { - {output?.map((vuln, v_idx) => { + {analysis?.map((vuln, v_idx) => { const uid = getUniqueId(); let userComments = ''; if(comments[vuln.vuln_id] !== undefined) { @@ -279,7 +285,43 @@ export default function Report() { ) } + + VEX + + {report.output?.vex && + + + + + + setVexExpanded(isExpanded)} + isExpanded={vexExpanded} + isIndented + isDisabled={!report.output?.vex} + > + {report.output?.vex && ( + + + {JSON.stringify(report.output.vex, null, 2)} + + + )} + + + + } + + + {Array.isArray(vuln.checklist) && vuln.checklist.length > 0 && ( <> Checklist: @@ -301,7 +343,7 @@ export default function Report() { })} - + onDelete()} message={`The report with id: ${name} will be permanently deleted.`}>Delete diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/1cd6c5da-60c9-4f61-83d0-6260d755b0c4.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/1cd6c5da-60c9-4f61-83d0-6260d755b0c4.json index f79cca84..d89ea0c2 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/1cd6c5da-60c9-4f61-83d0-6260d755b0c4.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/1cd6c5da-60c9-4f61-83d0-6260d755b0c4.json @@ -4547,33 +4547,47 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-44337", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` Package: Check if the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is being used within the containerized application, specifically the `parser/block.go` file's paragraph function. This is the vulnerable component that could lead to an infinite loop condition.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find any specific information on how to verify the usage of the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package in a containerized application. However, in general, to verify the usage of a specific package in a containerized application, you can try to analyze the dependencies of the application, check the import statements in the code, or search for specific function or method calls related to the package. Additionally, you can try to query the vector databases containing information about the container image under investigation to check if the package is listed as a dependency.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Input Handling for Markdown Parsing: Evaluate how the application handles user input for Markdown parsing. Since the vulnerability involves a specially crafted input causing an infinite loop, assess whether the application properly sanitizes and validates user input to prevent such crafted inputs from being processed.", - "response": "Based on the available information, it appears that the application does not properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop. The CVE-2021-41277 vulnerability is related to this issue, and the application's input handling mechanisms do not meet the necessary security standards to prevent such attacks. Therefore, the application is likely vulnerable to this type of attack, and further investigation is needed to determine the severity of the vulnerability and potential mitigation strategies.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Error Handling for Infinite Loop Conditions: Check how the application handles errors related to infinite loop conditions. Given that the exploit causes the program to hang and consume resources indefinitely, assess whether the application has mechanisms in place to detect and mitigate such conditions, preventing a denial of service (DoS) scenario.", - "response": "The application's error handling for infinite loop conditions is unclear due to the lack of specific information on the CVE and its impact on the container image. However, in general, a well-designed application should have mechanisms in place to detect and mitigate infinite loop conditions, such as timeouts, resource limits, and monitoring tools to prevent a denial of service (DoS) scenario. It is recommended to review the container image's code and configuration to identify any built-in safeguards and consider implementing additional measures to prevent infinite loop conditions.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is exploitable. Specifically, Checklist Item 2: Assess Input Handling for Markdown Parsing, reveals that the application does not properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop. This definitive answer indicates that the CVE is exploitable, as the application's input handling mechanisms do not meet the necessary security standards to prevent such attacks.", - "justification": { - "label": "vulnerable", - "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE is exploitable due to the application's failure to properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop.", - "status": "TRUE" - }, - "intel_score": 25 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-44337", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Is the `paragraph` function from the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package called in the codebase?", + "response": "No, the `paragraph` function from the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is not called in the codebase.\n\nThe search results show that the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is imported in the codebase, but they do not provide conclusive evidence that the `paragraph` function is called. The term \"paragraph\" is used in the codebase, but it is not related to the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Does the application process untrusted Markdown input that could be used to trigger an infinite loop in the `paragraph` function?", + "response": "The application does process untrusted Markdown input, and there is a potential vulnerability in the `paragraph` function that could be used to trigger an infinite loop. However, the exact nature of the vulnerability and its exploitability depend on the specific implementation and usage of the `paragraph` function in the application.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Are there any input validation or sanitization mechanisms in place to prevent malicious Markdown input from reaching the `paragraph` function?", + "response": "There are no input validation or sanitization mechanisms in place to prevent malicious Markdown input from reaching the `paragraph` function. The search results suggest that there are input validation and sanitization mechanisms in place, but they appear to be related to Kubernetes API conventions, logging, and text processing, and do not directly apply to the `paragraph` function. Specifically, the `paragraph` function is not mentioned in the search results, and there is no clear connection between the function and the input validation and sanitization mechanisms found in the search results. Therefore, it is likely that the `paragraph` function is vulnerable to malicious Markdown input.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Can an attacker remotely provide Markdown input to the application, potentially allowing them to exploit the vulnerability?", + "response": "No, an attacker cannot remotely provide Markdown input to the application, potentially allowing them to exploit the vulnerability. The application uses a Markdown parser to parse Markdown documents, but the input is not user-provided and is not coming from a remote source. The `mdtoc` tool is a command-line utility that generates a table of contents for a markdown file, and it can be used in various ways, including as a console application or incorporated into markdown files directly. However, the tool does not allow remote input, and the application does not provide a way for an attacker to provide remote input.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Are there any resource limits or timeout mechanisms in place to prevent the infinite loop from causing a denial of service condition?", + "response": "There are some resource limits and timeout mechanisms in place in the container source code, such as CPU, memory, and storage limits, as well as timeout and rate limit mechanisms. However, upon closer inspection, it appears that these mechanisms are not directly related to preventing infinite loops from causing denial of service conditions. The only mention of an infinite loop is in the vendor/golang.org/x/net/html/parse.go file, where it is mentioned as a possible issue when mixing foreign content and templates, but this is not directly related to denial of service prevention. Therefore, it is unclear if there are any specific mechanisms in place to prevent infinite loops from causing denial of service conditions.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "The CVE is not exploitable in this application. Investigation confirmed that although the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is imported in the codebase, the `paragraph` function is not called. Additionally, while the application does process untrusted Markdown input, which could potentially be used to trigger an infinite loop in the `paragraph` function, the input is not user-provided and does not come from a remote source, eliminating the attack vector.", + "justification": { + "label": "code_not_reachable", + "reason": "The `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is imported but the vulnerable `paragraph` function is not called, and the application's processing of untrusted Markdown input does not come from a user-provided or remote source, eliminating the attack vector.", + "status": "FALSE" + }, + "intel_score": 92, + "cvss": null + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/522b8fe6-45cd-4f96-affe-a84a5ee20198.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/522b8fe6-45cd-4f96-affe-a84a5ee20198.json index 4d9b0720..e07e4d01 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/522b8fe6-45cd-4f96-affe-a84a5ee20198.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/522b8fe6-45cd-4f96-affe-a84a5ee20198.json @@ -10873,33 +10873,36 @@ "user": "rromerom@redhat.com", "sent_at": "2025-02-20T15:47:00.245249Z" }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2023-45288", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify HTTP/2 Usage: Check if the containerized application uses HTTP/2 protocol. Since the vulnerability specifically targets HTTP/2 endpoints, assess if the application has HTTP/2 enabled and if it processes CONTINUATION frames.", - "response": "Based on the available information, it appears that the containerized application does not use the HTTP/2 protocol or process CONTINUATION frames. The initial code review did not indicate the use of HTTP/2 or CONTINUATION frames, and subsequent searches did not find any evidence of popular libraries or frameworks that support HTTP/2 being used by the application. However, it is possible that the application uses a custom or proprietary library that enables HTTP/2 support, which would not be detectable through the available tools and searches.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Header Data Handling: Evaluate how the application handles header data, particularly when it exceeds the MaxHeaderBytes limit. Check if the application properly limits the amount of excess header frames it processes before closing a connection.", - "response": "The container image appears to have some basic mechanisms in place for handling header data, including functions for decoding Pax headers, handling overflow and draining of header data, and limiting the amount of excess header frames that are processed. However, without more information about the specific requirements or constraints of the system, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment of how the application handles header data.", - "intermediate_steps": null + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2023-45288", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Verify HTTP/2 Usage: Check if the containerized application uses HTTP/2 protocol. Since the vulnerability specifically targets HTTP/2 endpoints, assess if the application has HTTP/2 enabled and if it processes CONTINUATION frames.", + "response": "Based on the available information, it appears that the containerized application does not use the HTTP/2 protocol or process CONTINUATION frames. The initial code review did not indicate the use of HTTP/2 or CONTINUATION frames, and subsequent searches did not find any evidence of popular libraries or frameworks that support HTTP/2 being used by the application. However, it is possible that the application uses a custom or proprietary library that enables HTTP/2 support, which would not be detectable through the available tools and searches.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess Header Data Handling: Evaluate how the application handles header data, particularly when it exceeds the MaxHeaderBytes limit. Check if the application properly limits the amount of excess header frames it processes before closing a connection.", + "response": "The container image appears to have some basic mechanisms in place for handling header data, including functions for decoding Pax headers, handling overflow and draining of header data, and limiting the amount of excess header frames that are processed. However, without more information about the specific requirements or constraints of the system, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment of how the application handles header data.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Inspect CONTINUATION Frame Processing: Review the code to see how CONTINUATION frames are processed. Ensure that the application does not parse and process an excessive number of CONTINUATION frames, which could lead to uncontrolled resource consumption.", + "response": "The container image does not appear to have any specific code for handling HTTP/2 CONTINUATION frames. However, it's possible that the image relies on a library or framework that handles HTTP/2 frames, including CONTINUATION frames, in a way that prevents excessive resource consumption. Without more information, it's difficult to provide a more specific answer.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is not exploitable. The investigation found that the containerized application does not use the HTTP/2 protocol or process CONTINUATION frames (Checklist Item 1), which is a necessary condition for the vulnerability to be exploited. While the application's handling of header data (Checklist Item 2) and CONTINUATION frame processing (Checklist Item 3) are not fully understood, the lack of HTTP/2 usage and CONTINUATION frame processing is sufficient to conclude that the CVE is not exploitable.", + "justification": { + "label": "requires_environment", + "reason": "The vulnerability requires a specific environment (HTTP/2 protocol and CONTINUATION frame processing) that is not present in the containerized application, making it not exploitable.", + "status": "FALSE" }, - { - "input": "Inspect CONTINUATION Frame Processing: Review the code to see how CONTINUATION frames are processed. Ensure that the application does not parse and process an excessive number of CONTINUATION frames, which could lead to uncontrolled resource consumption.", - "response": "The container image does not appear to have any specific code for handling HTTP/2 CONTINUATION frames. However, it's possible that the image relies on a library or framework that handles HTTP/2 frames, including CONTINUATION frames, in a way that prevents excessive resource consumption. Without more information, it's difficult to provide a more specific answer.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is not exploitable. The investigation found that the containerized application does not use the HTTP/2 protocol or process CONTINUATION frames (Checklist Item 1), which is a necessary condition for the vulnerability to be exploited. While the application's handling of header data (Checklist Item 2) and CONTINUATION frame processing (Checklist Item 3) are not fully understood, the lack of HTTP/2 usage and CONTINUATION frame processing is sufficient to conclude that the CVE is not exploitable.", - "justification": { - "label": "requires_environment", - "reason": "The vulnerability requires a specific environment (HTTP/2 protocol and CONTINUATION frame processing) that is not present in the containerized application, making it not exploitable.", - "status": "FALSE" - }, - "intel_score": 85 - } - ] + "intel_score": 85 + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/70cef9bf-d3e1-4eae-a264-5eb1a8b3f458.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/70cef9bf-d3e1-4eae-a264-5eb1a8b3f458.json index 0a133e40..ec3b3d32 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/70cef9bf-d3e1-4eae-a264-5eb1a8b3f458.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/70cef9bf-d3e1-4eae-a264-5eb1a8b3f458.json @@ -5082,43 +5082,47 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-45496", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of Privileged Build Process: Check if the OpenShift Container Platform's build process is utilizing the git-clone container with a privileged security context. This is the specific condition that allows for the exploitation of elevated privileges.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I was unable to find specific information on verifying the usage of a privileged build process in OpenShift Container Platform through internet searches. However, it is likely that this would involve checking the build configuration and security context of the git-clone container for elevated privileges.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Developer Access and Permissions: Evaluate the access levels and permissions of developers within the OpenShift environment. Since the vulnerability requires developer-level access to provide a crafted .gitconfig file, assess whether developers have the necessary permissions to exploit this vulnerability.", - "response": "To assess the access levels and permissions of developers within the OpenShift environment, you should review the OpenShift documentation on role-based access control (RBAC) and understand how it assigns permissions to users and groups. You can then evaluate the permissions assigned to developers and determine if they have the necessary access to exploit the vulnerability. Specifically, you should check if developers have the ability to create and manage .gitconfig files, and if they have the necessary permissions to access and modify the affected resources.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Inspect .gitconfig File Handling: Review how .gitconfig files are handled during the cloning process. Check if there are any controls in place to prevent the execution of arbitrary commands from within these files, and assess the potential for an attacker to craft a malicious .gitconfig file.", - "response": "Based on my research and general knowledge, it appears that .gitconfig files can potentially be used to execute arbitrary commands during the cloning process, and there may not be sufficient controls in place to prevent this. Therefore, it is possible for an attacker to craft a malicious .gitconfig file that could execute malicious commands. However, I would like to note that my answer is based on limited information, and further research would be needed to confirm this assessment.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Container Privileges and Escalation: Assess the privileges assigned to containers within the OpenShift environment. Since the vulnerability allows for arbitrary command execution on the worker node, evaluate the potential for an attacker to escalate their permissions on the node running the container.", - "response": "The vulnerability could potentially allow an attacker to escalate their privileges on the node running the container, depending on the specific privileges assigned to the container and the security context constraints in place. However, without more specific information on the OpenShift environment and the container's security configuration, it is difficult to provide a more detailed assessment of the potential impact.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Evaluate Custom Build Strategy Configuration: Check if the 'Custom' build strategy is enabled and if it allows developers to run arbitrary commands in a privileged container. Although this is disabled by default, verify that it has not been enabled for non-trusted users.", - "response": "The Custom Build Strategy Configuration should be reviewed to ensure that it has not been enabled for non-trusted users, as this could pose a security risk. While I couldn't find specific information on configuration options or flags, it's recommended to follow best practices and restrict this feature to trusted users only.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is exploitable. The investigation results indicate that developers may have the necessary permissions to exploit the vulnerability (Checklist Item 2), and that .gitconfig files can potentially be used to execute arbitrary commands during the cloning process (Checklist Item 3). Additionally, the vulnerability could potentially allow an attacker to escalate their privileges on the node running the container (Checklist Item 4). While the investigation results for Checklist Items 1 and 5 are inconclusive or require further research, the findings for Checklist Items 2, 3, and 4 suggest that the CVE is exploitable.", - "justification": { - "label": "vulnerable", - "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE is exploitable based on the investigation results, indicating that the necessary permissions are present, and the vulnerability can be used to execute arbitrary commands and potentially escalate privileges.", - "status": "TRUE" - }, - "intel_score": 55 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-45496", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Is the `paragraph` function from the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package called in the codebase?", + "response": "No, the `paragraph` function from the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is not called in the codebase.\n\nThe search results show that the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is imported in the codebase, but they do not provide conclusive evidence that the `paragraph` function is called. The term \"paragraph\" is used in the codebase, but it is not related to the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Does the application process untrusted Markdown input that could be used to trigger an infinite loop in the `paragraph` function?", + "response": "The application does process untrusted Markdown input, and there is a potential vulnerability in the `paragraph` function that could be used to trigger an infinite loop. However, the exact nature of the vulnerability and its exploitability depend on the specific implementation and usage of the `paragraph` function in the application.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Are there any input validation or sanitization mechanisms in place to prevent malicious Markdown input from reaching the `paragraph` function?", + "response": "There are no input validation or sanitization mechanisms in place to prevent malicious Markdown input from reaching the `paragraph` function. The search results suggest that there are input validation and sanitization mechanisms in place, but they appear to be related to Kubernetes API conventions, logging, and text processing, and do not directly apply to the `paragraph` function. Specifically, the `paragraph` function is not mentioned in the search results, and there is no clear connection between the function and the input validation and sanitization mechanisms found in the search results. Therefore, it is likely that the `paragraph` function is vulnerable to malicious Markdown input.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Can an attacker remotely provide Markdown input to the application, potentially allowing them to exploit the vulnerability?", + "response": "No, an attacker cannot remotely provide Markdown input to the application, potentially allowing them to exploit the vulnerability. The application uses a Markdown parser to parse Markdown documents, but the input is not user-provided and is not coming from a remote source. The `mdtoc` tool is a command-line utility that generates a table of contents for a markdown file, and it can be used in various ways, including as a console application or incorporated into markdown files directly. However, the tool does not allow remote input, and the application does not provide a way for an attacker to provide remote input.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Are there any resource limits or timeout mechanisms in place to prevent the infinite loop from causing a denial of service condition?", + "response": "There are some resource limits and timeout mechanisms in place in the container source code, such as CPU, memory, and storage limits, as well as timeout and rate limit mechanisms. However, upon closer inspection, it appears that these mechanisms are not directly related to preventing infinite loops from causing denial of service conditions. The only mention of an infinite loop is in the vendor/golang.org/x/net/html/parse.go file, where it is mentioned as a possible issue when mixing foreign content and templates, but this is not directly related to denial of service prevention. Therefore, it is unclear if there are any specific mechanisms in place to prevent infinite loops from causing denial of service conditions.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "The CVE is not exploitable in this application. Investigation confirmed that although the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is imported in the codebase, the `paragraph` function is not called. Additionally, while the application does process untrusted Markdown input, which could potentially be used to trigger an infinite loop in the `paragraph` function, the input is not user-provided and does not come from a remote source, eliminating the attack vector.", + "justification": { + "label": "code_not_reachable", + "reason": "The `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is imported but the vulnerable `paragraph` function is not called, and the application's processing of untrusted Markdown input does not come from a user-provided or remote source, eliminating the attack vector.", + "status": "FALSE" + }, + "intel_score": 92, + "cvss": null + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/bae675d4-e827-4fb5-b08a-7b7e5066a0f6.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/bae675d4-e827-4fb5-b08a-7b7e5066a0f6.json index df318b2b..1683eeb2 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/bae675d4-e827-4fb5-b08a-7b7e5066a0f6.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/bae675d4-e827-4fb5-b08a-7b7e5066a0f6.json @@ -5540,38 +5540,41 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-1485", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of `parent` or `plugin` Keywords: Review the code within the container image to check if devfiles are being parsed that use the `parent` or `plugin` keywords. This is the specific trigger for the vulnerability, and identifying such usage is crucial for assessing exploitability.", - "response": "The usage of `parent` or `plugin` keywords in the code within the container image can be verified by accessing the container image's file system and searching for `devfile.yaml` or `devfile.json` files that contain these keywords.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Devfile Parsing Logic: Evaluate how devfiles are parsed within the application. Are there any validation or sanitization checks in place for devfile contents, especially for the `parent` or `plugin` keywords? Understanding the parsing logic will help in determining the likelihood of exploitation.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I was unable to find any specific information about the devfile parsing logic within the application, including any validation or sanitization checks for devfile contents, especially for the `parent` or `plugin` keywords. However, I can suggest that the application likely uses a parsing library or framework to process devfiles, and it's possible that this library or framework includes some level of validation or sanitization. Without further information or access to the application's codebase, it's difficult to determine the exact parsing logic and potential vulnerabilities.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Inspect Cleanup Process: Investigate the cleanup process after decompression. Are there any safeguards in place to prevent overwriting or deleting files outside of the intended archive directory? The vulnerability specifically mentions the cleanup process as a vector for exploitation, so assessing its security is vital.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find specific information about the cleanup process and its potential vulnerabilities in container images. However, based on my understanding of the vulnerability, I can infer that the cleanup process after decompression is a critical component that requires careful attention to prevent potential security risks. It is essential to ensure that the cleanup process is properly implemented and secured to prevent overwriting or deleting files outside of the intended archive directory.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review User Interaction: Since the CVE mentions that an unauthenticated remote attacker needs to trick a user into parsing a malicious devfile, assess the user interaction points within the application. Are there any mechanisms in place that could prevent or limit the parsing of untrusted devfiles by users?", - "response": "Based on general knowledge of application security, common mechanisms that could prevent or limit the parsing of untrusted devfiles by users include input validation and sanitization, secure file upload handling, and user authentication and authorization. However, without specific information about the application's architecture and security features, it is impossible to determine if these mechanisms are in place.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **potentially exploitable**. \n\nThe investigation found that the usage of `parent` or `plugin` keywords in the code within the container image can be verified, which is a specific trigger for the vulnerability. However, the assessment of devfile parsing logic, cleanup process, and user interaction points were inconclusive due to lack of specific information. Therefore, it is crucial to further investigate these areas to determine the likelihood of exploitation.", - "justification": { - "label": "uncertain", - "reason": "The analysis is inconclusive due to a lack of specific information regarding devfile parsing logic, cleanup process, and user interaction points, making it uncertain whether the package is exploitable.", - "status": "UNKNOWN" - }, - "intel_score": 95 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-1485", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Verify Usage of `parent` or `plugin` Keywords: Review the code within the container image to check if devfiles are being parsed that use the `parent` or `plugin` keywords. This is the specific trigger for the vulnerability, and identifying such usage is crucial for assessing exploitability.", + "response": "The usage of `parent` or `plugin` keywords in the code within the container image can be verified by accessing the container image's file system and searching for `devfile.yaml` or `devfile.json` files that contain these keywords.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess Devfile Parsing Logic: Evaluate how devfiles are parsed within the application. Are there any validation or sanitization checks in place for devfile contents, especially for the `parent` or `plugin` keywords? Understanding the parsing logic will help in determining the likelihood of exploitation.", + "response": "Unfortunately, I was unable to find any specific information about the devfile parsing logic within the application, including any validation or sanitization checks for devfile contents, especially for the `parent` or `plugin` keywords. However, I can suggest that the application likely uses a parsing library or framework to process devfiles, and it's possible that this library or framework includes some level of validation or sanitization. Without further information or access to the application's codebase, it's difficult to determine the exact parsing logic and potential vulnerabilities.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Inspect Cleanup Process: Investigate the cleanup process after decompression. Are there any safeguards in place to prevent overwriting or deleting files outside of the intended archive directory? The vulnerability specifically mentions the cleanup process as a vector for exploitation, so assessing its security is vital.", + "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find specific information about the cleanup process and its potential vulnerabilities in container images. However, based on my understanding of the vulnerability, I can infer that the cleanup process after decompression is a critical component that requires careful attention to prevent potential security risks. It is essential to ensure that the cleanup process is properly implemented and secured to prevent overwriting or deleting files outside of the intended archive directory.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review User Interaction: Since the CVE mentions that an unauthenticated remote attacker needs to trick a user into parsing a malicious devfile, assess the user interaction points within the application. Are there any mechanisms in place that could prevent or limit the parsing of untrusted devfiles by users?", + "response": "Based on general knowledge of application security, common mechanisms that could prevent or limit the parsing of untrusted devfiles by users include input validation and sanitization, secure file upload handling, and user authentication and authorization. However, without specific information about the application's architecture and security features, it is impossible to determine if these mechanisms are in place.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **potentially exploitable**. \n\nThe investigation found that the usage of `parent` or `plugin` keywords in the code within the container image can be verified, which is a specific trigger for the vulnerability. However, the assessment of devfile parsing logic, cleanup process, and user interaction points were inconclusive due to lack of specific information. Therefore, it is crucial to further investigate these areas to determine the likelihood of exploitation.", + "justification": { + "label": "uncertain", + "reason": "The analysis is inconclusive due to a lack of specific information regarding devfile parsing logic, cleanup process, and user interaction points, making it uncertain whether the package is exploitable.", + "status": "UNKNOWN" + }, + "intel_score": 95 + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/bb50f7ed-76de-4cd6-8638-f93ec78fe8d7.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/bb50f7ed-76de-4cd6-8638-f93ec78fe8d7.json index f28abc0c..965667ac 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/bb50f7ed-76de-4cd6-8638-f93ec78fe8d7.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/bb50f7ed-76de-4cd6-8638-f93ec78fe8d7.json @@ -4235,33 +4235,47 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-44337", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` Package: Check if the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is being used within the containerized application, specifically the `parser/block.go` file's paragraph function. This is the vulnerable component that could lead to an infinite loop condition.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find any specific information on how to verify the usage of the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package in a containerized application. However, in general, to verify the usage of a specific package in a containerized application, you can try to analyze the dependencies of the application, check the import statements in the code, or search for specific function or method calls related to the package. Additionally, you can try to query the vector databases containing information about the container image under investigation to check if the package is listed as a dependency.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Input Handling for Markdown Parsing: Evaluate how the application handles user input for Markdown parsing. Since the vulnerability involves a specially crafted input causing an infinite loop, assess whether the application properly sanitizes and validates user input to prevent such crafted inputs from being processed.", - "response": "Based on the available information, it appears that the application does not properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop. The CVE-2021-41277 vulnerability is related to this issue, and the application's input handling mechanisms do not meet the necessary security standards to prevent such attacks. Therefore, the application is likely vulnerable to this type of attack, and further investigation is needed to determine the severity of the vulnerability and potential mitigation strategies.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Error Handling for Infinite Loop Conditions: Check how the application handles errors related to infinite loop conditions. Given that the exploit causes the program to hang and consume resources indefinitely, assess whether the application has mechanisms in place to detect and mitigate such conditions, preventing a denial of service (DoS) scenario.", - "response": "The application's error handling for infinite loop conditions is unclear due to the lack of specific information on the CVE and its impact on the container image. However, in general, a well-designed application should have mechanisms in place to detect and mitigate infinite loop conditions, such as timeouts, resource limits, and monitoring tools to prevent a denial of service (DoS) scenario. It is recommended to review the container image's code and configuration to identify any built-in safeguards and consider implementing additional measures to prevent infinite loop conditions.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is exploitable. Specifically, Checklist Item 2: Assess Input Handling for Markdown Parsing, reveals that the application does not properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop. This definitive answer indicates that the CVE is exploitable, as the application's input handling mechanisms do not meet the necessary security standards to prevent such attacks.", - "justification": { - "label": "vulnerable", - "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE is exploitable due to the application's failure to properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop.", - "status": "TRUE" - }, - "intel_score": 15 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-44337", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Is the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file from the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package used in the codebase?", + "response": "The `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file from the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is not directly used in the codebase. However, the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase, and there are several files that contain the string \"unmarshal.go\". This suggests that the `unmarshal.go` file may be used indirectly in the codebase.\n\nThe investigation was unable to find a direct reference to the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file, but it did find evidence that the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase. This suggests that the `unmarshal.go` file may be used indirectly, but without further investigation, it is impossible to say for certain.\n\nThe investigation used the Code Keyword Search tool to search for the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file, the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package, and the string \"unmarshal.go\". The results of these searches were used to determine that the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase, and that there are several files that contain the string \"unmarshal.go\".", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Does the application process untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access?", + "response": "Yes, the application is likely to process untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access. The search results indicate that the application uses protobuf messages and processes input data. Although the search results do not provide explicit information about untrusted input data, the CVE web search results suggest that parsing untrusted Protocol Buffers data can lead to uncontrolled recursion and Denial of Service attacks. Therefore, it is likely that the application is vulnerable to such attacks.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Are there any array index calculations or usage in the codebase that could be influenced by untrusted input, and are these indices properly validated to prevent out-of-bounds access?", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the codebase does perform some level of validation to prevent out-of-bounds access. However, the results also suggest that the codebase handles some level of untrusted input, but it is unclear if these inputs are properly validated and sanitized to prevent out-of-bounds access. Therefore, the answer to the question is: There are some array index calculations and usage in the codebase that could be influenced by untrusted input, and while there are some bounds checks and input validation, it is unclear if these are sufficient to prevent out-of-bounds access.\n\nSupporting evidence:\n\n* The Code Keyword Search tool returned several results related to array indexing, bounds checking, and input validation.\n* The `jsonpath/jsonpath.go` file contains a check for array index out of bounds.\n* The `input.go` file contains functions for handling user input and external input.\n* However, the results also suggest that the codebase may not be properly validating and sanitizing all untrusted inputs.\n\nRecommendation: Further investigation is needed to determine if the codebase is properly validating and sanitizing all untrusted inputs to prevent out-of-bounds access.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review the codebase for any usage of `github.com/gogo/protobuf` that may be accepting protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, which could increase the risk of exploitation.", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the application code does not use the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` library to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources. The Code Keyword Search tool did not return any results for usage of the library in the application code, excluding the `vendor` directory. Additionally, searching for other possible usage of the library in the application code did not yield any results. Therefore, it is unlikely that the application code is vulnerable to exploitation via the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` library.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess the overall input validation and sanitization practices within the application to ensure that untrusted input data is properly handled and cannot be used to trigger the vulnerability.", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the application does not have any clear input validation and sanitization practices in place to handle untrusted input data. The Code Keyword Search results did not provide any evidence of input validation and sanitization practices within the application, and the CVE Web Search results only provided general information on input validation and sanitization best practices. Therefore, it is likely that the application is vulnerable to attacks that exploit weak input fields, such as SQL injection attacks.\n\nHowever, it's worth noting that the investigation was limited to the provided tools and search queries, and it's possible that the application has input validation and sanitization practices in place that were not detected by the investigation. Further investigation and analysis would be needed to confirm the presence or absence of input validation and sanitization practices in the application.\n\nRecommendations:\n\n1. Implement input validation and sanitization practices throughout the application to handle untrusted input data.\n2. Use a combination of client-side and server-side validation to ensure that input data is valid and meets specific criteria.\n3. Use parameterized queries and prepared statements to prevent SQL injection attacks.\n4. Regularly review and update input validation and sanitization practices to ensure they are effective and up-to-date.\n\nBy implementing these recommendations, the application can reduce the risk of attacks that exploit weak input fields and improve the overall security of the application.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "The CVE is likely exploitable in this application. Investigation confirmed that the application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access. Although the codebase performs some level of validation to prevent out-of-bounds access, it is unclear if these inputs are properly validated and sanitized to prevent out-of-bounds access. Furthermore, the application does not have clear input validation and sanitization practices in place to handle untrusted input data, increasing the risk of exploitation. The use of the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package in the codebase, combined with the potential for untrusted input data, suggests that the application may be vulnerable to attacks that exploit weak input fields.", + "justification": { + "label": "vulnerable", + "reason": "The application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access, and lacks clear input validation and sanitization practices to handle such data, increasing the risk of exploitation.", + "status": "TRUE" + }, + "intel_score": 82, + "cvss": null + } + ], + "vex": {} + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/c60aa511-eb28-48d6-a591-08a5c5ec020f.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/c60aa511-eb28-48d6-a591-08a5c5ec020f.json index 52381c7a..d17f300a 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/c60aa511-eb28-48d6-a591-08a5c5ec020f.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/c60aa511-eb28-48d6-a591-08a5c5ec020f.json @@ -4235,33 +4235,166 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-44337", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` Package: Check if the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is being used within the containerized application, specifically the `parser/block.go` file's paragraph function. This is the vulnerable component that could lead to an infinite loop condition.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find any specific information on how to verify the usage of the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package in a containerized application. However, in general, to verify the usage of a specific package in a containerized application, you can try to analyze the dependencies of the application, check the import statements in the code, or search for specific function or method calls related to the package. Additionally, you can try to query the vector databases containing information about the container image under investigation to check if the package is listed as a dependency.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Input Handling for Markdown Parsing: Evaluate how the application handles user input for Markdown parsing. Since the vulnerability involves a specially crafted input causing an infinite loop, assess whether the application properly sanitizes and validates user input to prevent such crafted inputs from being processed.", - "response": "Based on the available information, it appears that the application does not properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop. The CVE-2021-41277 vulnerability is related to this issue, and the application's input handling mechanisms do not meet the necessary security standards to prevent such attacks. Therefore, the application is likely vulnerable to this type of attack, and further investigation is needed to determine the severity of the vulnerability and potential mitigation strategies.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Error Handling for Infinite Loop Conditions: Check how the application handles errors related to infinite loop conditions. Given that the exploit causes the program to hang and consume resources indefinitely, assess whether the application has mechanisms in place to detect and mitigate such conditions, preventing a denial of service (DoS) scenario.", - "response": "The application's error handling for infinite loop conditions is unclear due to the lack of specific information on the CVE and its impact on the container image. However, in general, a well-designed application should have mechanisms in place to detect and mitigate infinite loop conditions, such as timeouts, resource limits, and monitoring tools to prevent a denial of service (DoS) scenario. It is recommended to review the container image's code and configuration to identify any built-in safeguards and consider implementing additional measures to prevent infinite loop conditions.", - "intermediate_steps": null + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-44337", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Is the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file from the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package used in the codebase?", + "response": "The `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file from the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is not directly used in the codebase. However, the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase, and there are several files that contain the string \"unmarshal.go\". This suggests that the `unmarshal.go` file may be used indirectly in the codebase.\n\nThe investigation was unable to find a direct reference to the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file, but it did find evidence that the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase. This suggests that the `unmarshal.go` file may be used indirectly, but without further investigation, it is impossible to say for certain.\n\nThe investigation used the Code Keyword Search tool to search for the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file, the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package, and the string \"unmarshal.go\". The results of these searches were used to determine that the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase, and that there are several files that contain the string \"unmarshal.go\".", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Does the application process untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access?", + "response": "Yes, the application is likely to process untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access. The search results indicate that the application uses protobuf messages and processes input data. Although the search results do not provide explicit information about untrusted input data, the CVE web search results suggest that parsing untrusted Protocol Buffers data can lead to uncontrolled recursion and Denial of Service attacks. Therefore, it is likely that the application is vulnerable to such attacks.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Are there any array index calculations or usage in the codebase that could be influenced by untrusted input, and are these indices properly validated to prevent out-of-bounds access?", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the codebase does perform some level of validation to prevent out-of-bounds access. However, the results also suggest that the codebase handles some level of untrusted input, but it is unclear if these inputs are properly validated and sanitized to prevent out-of-bounds access. Therefore, the answer to the question is: There are some array index calculations and usage in the codebase that could be influenced by untrusted input, and while there are some bounds checks and input validation, it is unclear if these are sufficient to prevent out-of-bounds access.\n\nSupporting evidence:\n\n* The Code Keyword Search tool returned several results related to array indexing, bounds checking, and input validation.\n* The `jsonpath/jsonpath.go` file contains a check for array index out of bounds.\n* The `input.go` file contains functions for handling user input and external input.\n* However, the results also suggest that the codebase may not be properly validating and sanitizing all untrusted inputs.\n\nRecommendation: Further investigation is needed to determine if the codebase is properly validating and sanitizing all untrusted inputs to prevent out-of-bounds access.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review the codebase for any usage of `github.com/gogo/protobuf` that may be accepting protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, which could increase the risk of exploitation.", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the application code does not use the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` library to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources. The Code Keyword Search tool did not return any results for usage of the library in the application code, excluding the `vendor` directory. Additionally, searching for other possible usage of the library in the application code did not yield any results. Therefore, it is unlikely that the application code is vulnerable to exploitation via the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` library.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess the overall input validation and sanitization practices within the application to ensure that untrusted input data is properly handled and cannot be used to trigger the vulnerability.", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the application does not have any clear input validation and sanitization practices in place to handle untrusted input data. The Code Keyword Search results did not provide any evidence of input validation and sanitization practices within the application, and the CVE Web Search results only provided general information on input validation and sanitization best practices. Therefore, it is likely that the application is vulnerable to attacks that exploit weak input fields, such as SQL injection attacks.\n\nHowever, it's worth noting that the investigation was limited to the provided tools and search queries, and it's possible that the application has input validation and sanitization practices in place that were not detected by the investigation. Further investigation and analysis would be needed to confirm the presence or absence of input validation and sanitization practices in the application.\n\nRecommendations:\n\n1. Implement input validation and sanitization practices throughout the application to handle untrusted input data.\n2. Use a combination of client-side and server-side validation to ensure that input data is valid and meets specific criteria.\n3. Use parameterized queries and prepared statements to prevent SQL injection attacks.\n4. Regularly review and update input validation and sanitization practices to ensure they are effective and up-to-date.\n\nBy implementing these recommendations, the application can reduce the risk of attacks that exploit weak input fields and improve the overall security of the application.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "The CVE is likely exploitable in this application. Investigation confirmed that the application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access. Although the codebase performs some level of validation to prevent out-of-bounds access, it is unclear if these inputs are properly validated and sanitized to prevent out-of-bounds access. Furthermore, the application does not have clear input validation and sanitization practices in place to handle untrusted input data, increasing the risk of exploitation. The use of the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package in the codebase, combined with the potential for untrusted input data, suggests that the application may be vulnerable to attacks that exploit weak input fields.", + "justification": { + "label": "vulnerable", + "reason": "The application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access, and lacks clear input validation and sanitization practices to handle such data, increasing the risk of exploitation.", + "status": "TRUE" + }, + "intel_score": 82, + "cvss": null + } + ], + "vex": { + "document": { + "category": "csaf_vex", + "csaf_version": "2.0", + "notes": [ + { + "category": "disclaimer", + "title": "Unofficial Content Notice", + "text": "This CSAF document is generated as custom content for internal or experimental use. It is not an official Red Hat security document, has not undergone formal validation or review, and is not digitally signed. The information provided here should not be regarded as authoritative or replace official Red Hat advisories or VEX statements." + } + ], + "publisher": { + "category": "vendor", + "name": "Red Hat Product Security", + "namespace": "https://access.redhat.com/security/" + }, + "title": "ExploitIQ VEX Document", + "tracking": { + "current_release_date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "generator": { + "date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "engine": { + "name": "csaf-tool", + "version": "0.3.2" + } + }, + "id": "CSAF-Document-20251222112315", + "initial_release_date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "revision_history": [ + { + "date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "number": "1", + "summary": "Initial version" + } + ], + "status": "final", + "version": "1" } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is exploitable. Specifically, Checklist Item 2: Assess Input Handling for Markdown Parsing, reveals that the application does not properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop. This definitive answer indicates that the CVE is exploitable, as the application's input handling mechanisms do not meet the necessary security standards to prevent such attacks.", - "justification": { - "label": "vulnerable", - "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE is exploitable due to the application's failure to properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop.", - "status": "TRUE" }, - "intel_score": 40 + "product_tree": { + "branches": [ + { + "category": "vendor", + "name": "openshift4", + "branches": [ + { + "category": "product_name", + "name": "registry.redhat.io/openshift4/kubernetes-nmstate-rhel8-operator", + "branches": [ + { + "category": "product_version", + "name": "sha256:a5ecbc406c33e464b5b0920513678be0f4aeab3757322ee3e384753098ab5c55", + "product": { + "name": "openshift4 registry.redhat.io/openshift4/kubernetes-nmstate-rhel8-operator sha256:a5ecbc406c33e464b5b0920513678be0f4aeab3757322ee3e384753098ab5c55", + "product_id": "CSAFPID_0001" + } + } + ] + } + ] + } + ] + }, + "vulnerabilities": [ + { + "cve": "CVE-2024-44337", + "notes": [ + { + "category": "description", + "title": "Vulnerability description", + "text": "An issue was discovered in GoGo Protobuf before 1.3.2. plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go lacks certain index validation, aka the \"skippy peanut butter\" issue." + }, + { + "category": "summary", + "text": "Improper Input Validation in GoGo Protobuf", + "title": "Vulnerability summary" + }, + { + "category": "general", + "text": "OpenShift Container Platform (OCP), OpenShift ServiceMesh (OSSM) and Red Hat OpenShift Jaeger (RHOSJ) all include code generated by github.com/gogo/protobuf to parse protobuf messages. However, no component is known to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, hence this vulnerability is rated Moderate for OCP, OSSM and RHOSJ.\nOpenShift Virtualization includes code generated by github.com/gogo/protobuf to parse protobuf messages. However, no component of OpenShift Virtualization is known to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, hence this vulnerability is rated Moderate.\nRed Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes (RHACM) includes code generated by github.com/gogo/protobuf to parse protobuf messages. However, no RHACM component is accepting protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources and are used with a limited scope, hence this vulnerability is rated Moderate for RHACM.\nRed Hat Cluster Application Migration (CAM) includes code generated by github.com/gogo/protobuf to parse protobuf messages. However, no CAM component is known to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, hence this vulnerability is rated Moderate for CAM.\nCryostat-2 is affected as it does ship gogo/protobuf library with it's distribution but the only use for Protobuf would be the Kubernetes/OpenShift API server the operator communicates with and it should be authenticated hence it is affected with Moderate impact.", + "title": "Statement" + }, + { + "category": "analysis", + "title": "ExploitIQ Analysis Summary", + "text": "The CVE is likely exploitable in this application. Investigation confirmed that the application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access. Although the codebase performs some level of validation to prevent out-of-bounds access, it is unclear if these inputs are properly validated and sanitized to prevent out-of-bounds access. Furthermore, the application does not have clear input validation and sanitization practices in place to handle untrusted input data, increasing the risk of exploitation. The use of the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package in the codebase, combined with the potential for untrusted input data, suggests that the application may be vulnerable to attacks that exploit weak input fields." + }, + { + "category": "analysis", + "title": "ExploitIQ Analysis Justification Reasoning", + "text": "The application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access, and lacks clear input validation and sanitization practices to handle such data, increasing the risk of exploitation." + } + ], + "product_status": { + "known_affected": [ + "CSAFPID_0001" + ] + }, + "threats": [ + { + "category": "impact", + "details": "Important", + "date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "product_ids": [ + "CSAFPID_0001" + ] + } + ], + "remediations": [ + { + "category": "vendor_fix", + "details": "Upgrade to the first patched version(s): github.com/gogo/protobuf:1.3.2.", + "product_ids": [ + "CSAFPID_0001" + ] + } + ] + } + ] } - ] + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/cbeda699-2fd1-4909-bd98-c6827cec9f9e.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/cbeda699-2fd1-4909-bd98-c6827cec9f9e.json index 2b66d0d4..365c55eb 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/cbeda699-2fd1-4909-bd98-c6827cec9f9e.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/cbeda699-2fd1-4909-bd98-c6827cec9f9e.json @@ -6013,38 +6013,41 @@ "user": "rromerom@redhat.com", "sent_at": "2025-01-20T13:32:52.045894Z" }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-41110", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Docker Engine API Client Usage: Check if the Docker Engine API client is used within the containerized environment to make requests that could potentially bypass authorization plugins (AuthZ).", - "response": "No, the container image or any of its dependencies do not use the Docker Engine API client to make requests. Instead, it uses a fake Docker client (`FakeDockerClient`) for testing purposes, and in the production code, it uses an `app.DockerClientSearcher` which uses a mock or fake implementation of the Docker client, rather than the Docker Engine API client.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Inspect Authorization Plugin Configuration: Review the configuration of authorization plugins used within the containerized environment. Determine if they rely on the request or response body to make access control decisions, which could be impacted by this vulnerability.", - "response": "The container image does not use authorization plugins that rely on the request or response body to make access control decisions. However, the use of the `insecureTag` flag may have potential security implications, such as bypassing security checks, and it's not recommended for production environments.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess API Request Handling: Evaluate how the Docker Engine handles specially-crafted API requests that could exploit this vulnerability. Check if the daemon correctly forwards the request or response to the authorization plugin with the body, or if it allows requests without the body under certain circumstances.", - "response": "Based on my understanding of the Docker Engine's architecture, it is likely that the Docker Engine handles API requests by forwarding them to the authorization plugin with the body. However, without concrete evidence, I couldn't confirm this behavior.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Containerization Tool Usage: If using containerization tools like Podman, Buildah, Skopeo, or containernetworking-plugins, verify that they are not affected by this vulnerability, as Red Hat does not ship AuthZ plugins with these tools.", - "response": "The container image under investigation does not use Podman, Buildah, Skopeo, or containernetworking-plugins, but instead uses Docker. However, I was unable to find any information about Docker being affected by the CVE vulnerability or the container image using AuthZ plugins. Additionally, I was unable to find any information about the purpose and functionality of the container image.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not exploitable**. The investigation results show that the container image does not use the Docker Engine API client to make requests (Checklist Item 1), and the authorization plugins used do not rely on the request or response body to make access control decisions (Checklist Item 2). Additionally, the container image does not use containerization tools that could be affected by the vulnerability (Checklist Item 4). While there are some potential security implications related to the use of the `insecureTag` flag, it does not affect the exploitability of the CVE.", - "justification": { - "label": "code_not_reachable", - "reason": "The vulnerable code is not executed during runtime because the container image does not use the Docker Engine API client to make requests and the authorization plugins used do not rely on the request or response body to make access control decisions.", - "status": "FALSE" - }, - "intel_score": 60 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-41110", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Verify Docker Engine API Client Usage: Check if the Docker Engine API client is used within the containerized environment to make requests that could potentially bypass authorization plugins (AuthZ).", + "response": "No, the container image or any of its dependencies do not use the Docker Engine API client to make requests. Instead, it uses a fake Docker client (`FakeDockerClient`) for testing purposes, and in the production code, it uses an `app.DockerClientSearcher` which uses a mock or fake implementation of the Docker client, rather than the Docker Engine API client.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Inspect Authorization Plugin Configuration: Review the configuration of authorization plugins used within the containerized environment. Determine if they rely on the request or response body to make access control decisions, which could be impacted by this vulnerability.", + "response": "The container image does not use authorization plugins that rely on the request or response body to make access control decisions. However, the use of the `insecureTag` flag may have potential security implications, such as bypassing security checks, and it's not recommended for production environments.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess API Request Handling: Evaluate how the Docker Engine handles specially-crafted API requests that could exploit this vulnerability. Check if the daemon correctly forwards the request or response to the authorization plugin with the body, or if it allows requests without the body under certain circumstances.", + "response": "Based on my understanding of the Docker Engine's architecture, it is likely that the Docker Engine handles API requests by forwarding them to the authorization plugin with the body. However, without concrete evidence, I couldn't confirm this behavior.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review Containerization Tool Usage: If using containerization tools like Podman, Buildah, Skopeo, or containernetworking-plugins, verify that they are not affected by this vulnerability, as Red Hat does not ship AuthZ plugins with these tools.", + "response": "The container image under investigation does not use Podman, Buildah, Skopeo, or containernetworking-plugins, but instead uses Docker. However, I was unable to find any information about Docker being affected by the CVE vulnerability or the container image using AuthZ plugins. Additionally, I was unable to find any information about the purpose and functionality of the container image.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not exploitable**. The investigation results show that the container image does not use the Docker Engine API client to make requests (Checklist Item 1), and the authorization plugins used do not rely on the request or response body to make access control decisions (Checklist Item 2). Additionally, the container image does not use containerization tools that could be affected by the vulnerability (Checklist Item 4). While there are some potential security implications related to the use of the `insecureTag` flag, it does not affect the exploitability of the CVE.", + "justification": { + "label": "code_not_reachable", + "reason": "The vulnerable code is not executed during runtime because the container image does not use the Docker Engine API client to make requests and the authorization plugins used do not rely on the request or response body to make access control decisions.", + "status": "FALSE" + }, + "intel_score": 60 + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/cf4e5566-2d42-4f07-80bf-76df5fb2ba8b.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/cf4e5566-2d42-4f07-80bf-76df5fb2ba8b.json index b17d8d41..ee6d3ab1 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/cf4e5566-2d42-4f07-80bf-76df5fb2ba8b.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/cf4e5566-2d42-4f07-80bf-76df5fb2ba8b.json @@ -5431,38 +5431,41 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-3744", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify TokenRequests Configuration: Check the CSIDriver object configuration within the containerized environment to see if TokenRequests is enabled. This is a prerequisite for the vulnerability to be exploitable, as it controls whether service account tokens are logged.", - "response": "The TokenRequests configuration is likely related to the TokenRequest API in Kubernetes, which is used to request service account tokens. To verify the TokenRequests configuration in a containerized environment, you would need to check the CSIDriver object configuration, which is responsible for managing the TokenRequest API. However, without further information or specific documentation, I cannot provide a more detailed answer on how to verify the TokenRequests configuration.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Log Level Configuration: Determine the log level configuration of the azure-file-csi-driver within the container. The vulnerability is only exploitable if the driver is set to run at log level 2 or greater via the -v flag, which would cause service account tokens to be logged.", - "response": "The log level configuration of the azure-file-csi-driver is not explicitly stated, but it is likely configurable via command-line arguments or configuration files. To determine the log level, you would typically need to check the driver's documentation or the container's configuration files. If the driver is set to run at log level 2 or greater via the -v flag, it may cause service account tokens to be logged, potentially exploiting the vulnerability.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Evaluate Access to Driver Logs: Assess who has access to the driver logs within the containerized environment. The exploitability of this vulnerability hinges on an actor having access to these logs, where they could observe and potentially misuse service account tokens.", - "response": "In a containerized environment, access to driver logs is typically controlled by the logging mechanism used by the containerization platform, such as Docker or Kubernetes, and the Linux distribution's logging system. The logging configuration and access controls are usually defined in the container image's configuration files or in the orchestration platform's configuration. To assess who has access to the driver logs, one would need to review the container image's configuration and the logging configuration of the containerization platform and Linux distribution. However, without specific information about the container image under investigation, it is difficult to provide a more detailed answer.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Secret Storage Practices: Investigate how secrets are stored within the cloud vault solutions accessible by the service account tokens. Understanding the potential impact of these tokens being compromised is crucial for assessing the overall risk posed by this vulnerability.", - "response": "Cloud vault solutions, such as AWS Secrets Manager, Google Cloud Secret Manager, and Azure Key Vault, typically store secrets securely using encryption and access controls. Service account tokens are used to authenticate and authorize access to these secrets. If service account tokens are compromised, an attacker may gain unauthorized access to the secrets stored in the cloud vault solution. This could lead to a range of security risks, including data breaches, lateral movement, and privilege escalation. Therefore, it is essential to implement robust security controls, such as rotation of service account tokens, monitoring of access logs, and encryption of secrets in transit and at rest, to minimize the risk of compromised service account tokens.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not definitively exploitable**. \n\nThe only checklist item with a definitive answer is Checklist Item 4: Review Secret Storage Practices, which indicates that if service account tokens are compromised, an attacker may gain unauthorized access to secrets stored in cloud vault solutions, leading to various security risks. However, this item does not provide information on whether the vulnerability is exploitable in the first place. The other checklist items (1, 2, and 3) have ambiguous answers, and without further information, it is unclear whether the prerequisites for exploitability are met.", - "justification": { - "label": "uncertain", - "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE is \"not definitively exploitable\" due to ambiguous answers in the checklist items and a lack of information on whether the prerequisites for exploitability are met.", - "status": "UNKNOWN" - }, - "intel_score": 77 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-3744", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Verify TokenRequests Configuration: Check the CSIDriver object configuration within the containerized environment to see if TokenRequests is enabled. This is a prerequisite for the vulnerability to be exploitable, as it controls whether service account tokens are logged.", + "response": "The TokenRequests configuration is likely related to the TokenRequest API in Kubernetes, which is used to request service account tokens. To verify the TokenRequests configuration in a containerized environment, you would need to check the CSIDriver object configuration, which is responsible for managing the TokenRequest API. However, without further information or specific documentation, I cannot provide a more detailed answer on how to verify the TokenRequests configuration.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess Log Level Configuration: Determine the log level configuration of the azure-file-csi-driver within the container. The vulnerability is only exploitable if the driver is set to run at log level 2 or greater via the -v flag, which would cause service account tokens to be logged.", + "response": "The log level configuration of the azure-file-csi-driver is not explicitly stated, but it is likely configurable via command-line arguments or configuration files. To determine the log level, you would typically need to check the driver's documentation or the container's configuration files. If the driver is set to run at log level 2 or greater via the -v flag, it may cause service account tokens to be logged, potentially exploiting the vulnerability.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Evaluate Access to Driver Logs: Assess who has access to the driver logs within the containerized environment. The exploitability of this vulnerability hinges on an actor having access to these logs, where they could observe and potentially misuse service account tokens.", + "response": "In a containerized environment, access to driver logs is typically controlled by the logging mechanism used by the containerization platform, such as Docker or Kubernetes, and the Linux distribution's logging system. The logging configuration and access controls are usually defined in the container image's configuration files or in the orchestration platform's configuration. To assess who has access to the driver logs, one would need to review the container image's configuration and the logging configuration of the containerization platform and Linux distribution. However, without specific information about the container image under investigation, it is difficult to provide a more detailed answer.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review Secret Storage Practices: Investigate how secrets are stored within the cloud vault solutions accessible by the service account tokens. Understanding the potential impact of these tokens being compromised is crucial for assessing the overall risk posed by this vulnerability.", + "response": "Cloud vault solutions, such as AWS Secrets Manager, Google Cloud Secret Manager, and Azure Key Vault, typically store secrets securely using encryption and access controls. Service account tokens are used to authenticate and authorize access to these secrets. If service account tokens are compromised, an attacker may gain unauthorized access to the secrets stored in the cloud vault solution. This could lead to a range of security risks, including data breaches, lateral movement, and privilege escalation. Therefore, it is essential to implement robust security controls, such as rotation of service account tokens, monitoring of access logs, and encryption of secrets in transit and at rest, to minimize the risk of compromised service account tokens.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not definitively exploitable**. \n\nThe only checklist item with a definitive answer is Checklist Item 4: Review Secret Storage Practices, which indicates that if service account tokens are compromised, an attacker may gain unauthorized access to secrets stored in cloud vault solutions, leading to various security risks. However, this item does not provide information on whether the vulnerability is exploitable in the first place. The other checklist items (1, 2, and 3) have ambiguous answers, and without further information, it is unclear whether the prerequisites for exploitability are met.", + "justification": { + "label": "uncertain", + "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE is \"not definitively exploitable\" due to ambiguous answers in the checklist items and a lack of information on whether the prerequisites for exploitability are met.", + "status": "UNKNOWN" + }, + "intel_score": 77 + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/d9589e83-66c6-4744-9211-0fe4c2b6ec5d.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/d9589e83-66c6-4744-9211-0fe4c2b6ec5d.json index 489329b8..c4f2cd75 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/d9589e83-66c6-4744-9211-0fe4c2b6ec5d.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/d9589e83-66c6-4744-9211-0fe4c2b6ec5d.json @@ -6326,33 +6326,36 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-28180", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of Decrypt or DecryptMulti Functions: Check if the application within the container uses the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions from the jose package. These functions are specifically vulnerable to the improper handling of highly compressed data.", - "response": "The container image does not use the jose package, and therefore, it does not use the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions from the jose package.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Input Data Handling: Evaluate how the application handles JWE (JSON Web Encryption) inputs, particularly those containing compressed data. Determine if the application has any controls in place to limit the size of decompressed data or if it relies on the jose package's default behavior.", - "response": "The application's handling of JWE inputs, particularly those containing compressed data, is unclear based on the provided context. There is no indication of controls in place to limit the size of decompressed data, and the application does not appear to use the jose package to handle JWE inputs. Further investigation is needed to determine how the application handles JWE inputs and if it has any controls in place to limit the size of decompressed data.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Error Handling for Decompression: Investigate how the application handles errors related to decompression, especially when the decompressed data exceeds the limits set by the jose package (250kB or 10x the compressed size). Ensure that the application does not ignore or mishandle such errors, which could lead to exploitation.", - "response": "The application uses the jose package for decompression, but the specific usage and error handling are not clear from the provided code snippet. The jose package provides error types and functions for handling errors, such as jose.ErrDecompression and jose.Decompress, which are likely used by the application to handle errors when the decompressed data exceeds the limits. However, without more code context, it is unclear how the application specifically handles these errors.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not exploitable**. The container image does not use the jose package, and therefore, it does not use the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions from the jose package, which are specifically vulnerable to the improper handling of highly compressed data (Checklist Item 1). This definitive answer indicates that the CVE is not exploitable through this particular vulnerability.", - "justification": { - "label": "code_not_present", - "reason": "The container image does not use the jose package, which contains the vulnerable functions, making the CVE not exploitable.", - "status": "FALSE" - }, - "intel_score": 89 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-28180", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Verify Usage of Decrypt or DecryptMulti Functions: Check if the application within the container uses the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions from the jose package. These functions are specifically vulnerable to the improper handling of highly compressed data.", + "response": "The container image does not use the jose package, and therefore, it does not use the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions from the jose package.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess Input Data Handling: Evaluate how the application handles JWE (JSON Web Encryption) inputs, particularly those containing compressed data. Determine if the application has any controls in place to limit the size of decompressed data or if it relies on the jose package's default behavior.", + "response": "The application's handling of JWE inputs, particularly those containing compressed data, is unclear based on the provided context. There is no indication of controls in place to limit the size of decompressed data, and the application does not appear to use the jose package to handle JWE inputs. Further investigation is needed to determine how the application handles JWE inputs and if it has any controls in place to limit the size of decompressed data.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review Error Handling for Decompression: Investigate how the application handles errors related to decompression, especially when the decompressed data exceeds the limits set by the jose package (250kB or 10x the compressed size). Ensure that the application does not ignore or mishandle such errors, which could lead to exploitation.", + "response": "The application uses the jose package for decompression, but the specific usage and error handling are not clear from the provided code snippet. The jose package provides error types and functions for handling errors, such as jose.ErrDecompression and jose.Decompress, which are likely used by the application to handle errors when the decompressed data exceeds the limits. However, without more code context, it is unclear how the application specifically handles these errors.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not exploitable**. The container image does not use the jose package, and therefore, it does not use the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions from the jose package, which are specifically vulnerable to the improper handling of highly compressed data (Checklist Item 1). This definitive answer indicates that the CVE is not exploitable through this particular vulnerability.", + "justification": { + "label": "code_not_present", + "reason": "The container image does not use the jose package, which contains the vulnerable functions, making the CVE not exploitable.", + "status": "FALSE" + }, + "intel_score": 89 + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/ed5ba00d-e037-445a-bb8b-70dbf1572ae1.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/ed5ba00d-e037-445a-bb8b-70dbf1572ae1.json index 4f675921..2eb273f0 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/ed5ba00d-e037-445a-bb8b-70dbf1572ae1.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/ed5ba00d-e037-445a-bb8b-70dbf1572ae1.json @@ -6326,33 +6326,36 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-28180", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of Decrypt or DecryptMulti Functions: Check if the application within the container uses the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions from the jose package. These functions are specifically vulnerable to the improper handling of highly compressed data.", - "response": "The application within the container image imports the jose package, but there is no explicit call to the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions in the provided code. It's possible that the jose package is used indirectly, but this cannot be confirmed without further investigation.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Input Data Handling: Evaluate how the application handles JWE (JSON Web Encryption) data, particularly if it processes untrusted input that could contain highly compressed data. Determine if the application has any safeguards in place to prevent excessive memory and CPU usage during decompression.", - "response": "The application handles JWE data by using the `jose` package, specifically the `jose.JSONWebKey` type, and has a safeguard in place to prevent excessive memory and CPU usage during decompression. The safeguard limits the decompression output size to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack, returning an error if the decompressed data would exceed 250kB or 10x the compressed size (whichever is larger).", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Error Handling for Decompression: Investigate how the application handles errors related to decompression, specifically if it correctly handles cases where the decompressed data exceeds the limits set by the patched versions (250kB or 10x the compressed size). Ensure that the application does not ignore or mishandle such errors, which could lead to exploitation.", - "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the application or its dependencies do not use a decompression function or component, and there is no indication of known vulnerabilities related to decompression error handling in the container image's dependencies. However, the exact dependencies and their versions used by the application in the container image are unknown. Therefore, it is recommended to further investigate the container image's dependencies and their versions to ensure that they do not have any known vulnerabilities related to decompression error handling.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not exploitable**. The application has a safeguard in place to prevent excessive memory and CPU usage during decompression, limiting the decompression output size to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. Specifically, Checklist Item 2 confirms that the application handles JWE data securely and has a safeguard to prevent exploitation. Although Checklist Item 1 and Checklist Item 3 have ambiguous answers, Checklist Item 2 provides a definitive answer that indicates the CVE is not exploitable.", - "justification": { - "label": "protected_by_mitigating_control", - "reason": "The application has a safeguard in place to prevent excessive memory and CPU usage during decompression, limiting the decompression output size to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack, which mitigates the likelihood or impact of the vulnerability.", - "status": "FALSE" - }, - "intel_score": 11 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-28180", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Verify Usage of Decrypt or DecryptMulti Functions: Check if the application within the container uses the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions from the jose package. These functions are specifically vulnerable to the improper handling of highly compressed data.", + "response": "The application within the container image imports the jose package, but there is no explicit call to the Decrypt or DecryptMulti functions in the provided code. It's possible that the jose package is used indirectly, but this cannot be confirmed without further investigation.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess Input Data Handling: Evaluate how the application handles JWE (JSON Web Encryption) data, particularly if it processes untrusted input that could contain highly compressed data. Determine if the application has any safeguards in place to prevent excessive memory and CPU usage during decompression.", + "response": "The application handles JWE data by using the `jose` package, specifically the `jose.JSONWebKey` type, and has a safeguard in place to prevent excessive memory and CPU usage during decompression. The safeguard limits the decompression output size to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack, returning an error if the decompressed data would exceed 250kB or 10x the compressed size (whichever is larger).", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review Error Handling for Decompression: Investigate how the application handles errors related to decompression, specifically if it correctly handles cases where the decompressed data exceeds the limits set by the patched versions (250kB or 10x the compressed size). Ensure that the application does not ignore or mishandle such errors, which could lead to exploitation.", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the application or its dependencies do not use a decompression function or component, and there is no indication of known vulnerabilities related to decompression error handling in the container image's dependencies. However, the exact dependencies and their versions used by the application in the container image are unknown. Therefore, it is recommended to further investigate the container image's dependencies and their versions to ensure that they do not have any known vulnerabilities related to decompression error handling.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not exploitable**. The application has a safeguard in place to prevent excessive memory and CPU usage during decompression, limiting the decompression output size to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. Specifically, Checklist Item 2 confirms that the application handles JWE data securely and has a safeguard to prevent exploitation. Although Checklist Item 1 and Checklist Item 3 have ambiguous answers, Checklist Item 2 provides a definitive answer that indicates the CVE is not exploitable.", + "justification": { + "label": "protected_by_mitigating_control", + "reason": "The application has a safeguard in place to prevent excessive memory and CPU usage during decompression, limiting the decompression output size to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack, which mitigates the likelihood or impact of the vulnerability.", + "status": "FALSE" + }, + "intel_score": 11 + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/edc301d5-4450-47dc-aa01-fd204844153e.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/edc301d5-4450-47dc-aa01-fd204844153e.json index cc859c7b..c8951c7a 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/edc301d5-4450-47dc-aa01-fd204844153e.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/edc301d5-4450-47dc-aa01-fd204844153e.json @@ -4235,33 +4235,166 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-44337", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` Package: Check if the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package is being used within the containerized application, specifically the `parser/block.go` file's paragraph function. This is the vulnerable component that could lead to an infinite loop condition.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find any specific information on how to verify the usage of the `github.com/gomarkdown/markdown` package in a containerized application. However, in general, to verify the usage of a specific package in a containerized application, you can try to analyze the dependencies of the application, check the import statements in the code, or search for specific function or method calls related to the package. Additionally, you can try to query the vector databases containing information about the container image under investigation to check if the package is listed as a dependency.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Input Handling for Markdown Parsing: Evaluate how the application handles user input for Markdown parsing. Since the vulnerability involves a specially crafted input causing an infinite loop, assess whether the application properly sanitizes and validates user input to prevent such crafted inputs from being processed.", - "response": "Based on the available information, it appears that the application does not properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop. The CVE-2021-41277 vulnerability is related to this issue, and the application's input handling mechanisms do not meet the necessary security standards to prevent such attacks. Therefore, the application is likely vulnerable to this type of attack, and further investigation is needed to determine the severity of the vulnerability and potential mitigation strategies.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Error Handling for Infinite Loop Conditions: Check how the application handles errors related to infinite loop conditions. Given that the exploit causes the program to hang and consume resources indefinitely, assess whether the application has mechanisms in place to detect and mitigate such conditions, preventing a denial of service (DoS) scenario.", - "response": "The application's error handling for infinite loop conditions is unclear due to the lack of specific information on the CVE and its impact on the container image. However, in general, a well-designed application should have mechanisms in place to detect and mitigate infinite loop conditions, such as timeouts, resource limits, and monitoring tools to prevent a denial of service (DoS) scenario. It is recommended to review the container image's code and configuration to identify any built-in safeguards and consider implementing additional measures to prevent infinite loop conditions.", - "intermediate_steps": null + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-44337", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Is the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file from the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package used in the codebase?", + "response": "The `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file from the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is not directly used in the codebase. However, the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase, and there are several files that contain the string \"unmarshal.go\". This suggests that the `unmarshal.go` file may be used indirectly in the codebase.\n\nThe investigation was unable to find a direct reference to the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file, but it did find evidence that the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase. This suggests that the `unmarshal.go` file may be used indirectly, but without further investigation, it is impossible to say for certain.\n\nThe investigation used the Code Keyword Search tool to search for the `plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go` file, the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package, and the string \"unmarshal.go\". The results of these searches were used to determine that the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package is used in the codebase, and that there are several files that contain the string \"unmarshal.go\".", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Does the application process untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access?", + "response": "Yes, the application is likely to process untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access. The search results indicate that the application uses protobuf messages and processes input data. Although the search results do not provide explicit information about untrusted input data, the CVE web search results suggest that parsing untrusted Protocol Buffers data can lead to uncontrolled recursion and Denial of Service attacks. Therefore, it is likely that the application is vulnerable to such attacks.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Are there any array index calculations or usage in the codebase that could be influenced by untrusted input, and are these indices properly validated to prevent out-of-bounds access?", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the codebase does perform some level of validation to prevent out-of-bounds access. However, the results also suggest that the codebase handles some level of untrusted input, but it is unclear if these inputs are properly validated and sanitized to prevent out-of-bounds access. Therefore, the answer to the question is: There are some array index calculations and usage in the codebase that could be influenced by untrusted input, and while there are some bounds checks and input validation, it is unclear if these are sufficient to prevent out-of-bounds access.\n\nSupporting evidence:\n\n* The Code Keyword Search tool returned several results related to array indexing, bounds checking, and input validation.\n* The `jsonpath/jsonpath.go` file contains a check for array index out of bounds.\n* The `input.go` file contains functions for handling user input and external input.\n* However, the results also suggest that the codebase may not be properly validating and sanitizing all untrusted inputs.\n\nRecommendation: Further investigation is needed to determine if the codebase is properly validating and sanitizing all untrusted inputs to prevent out-of-bounds access.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review the codebase for any usage of `github.com/gogo/protobuf` that may be accepting protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, which could increase the risk of exploitation.", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the application code does not use the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` library to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources. The Code Keyword Search tool did not return any results for usage of the library in the application code, excluding the `vendor` directory. Additionally, searching for other possible usage of the library in the application code did not yield any results. Therefore, it is unlikely that the application code is vulnerable to exploitation via the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` library.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess the overall input validation and sanitization practices within the application to ensure that untrusted input data is properly handled and cannot be used to trigger the vulnerability.", + "response": "Based on the investigation, it appears that the application does not have any clear input validation and sanitization practices in place to handle untrusted input data. The Code Keyword Search results did not provide any evidence of input validation and sanitization practices within the application, and the CVE Web Search results only provided general information on input validation and sanitization best practices. Therefore, it is likely that the application is vulnerable to attacks that exploit weak input fields, such as SQL injection attacks.\n\nHowever, it's worth noting that the investigation was limited to the provided tools and search queries, and it's possible that the application has input validation and sanitization practices in place that were not detected by the investigation. Further investigation and analysis would be needed to confirm the presence or absence of input validation and sanitization practices in the application.\n\nRecommendations:\n\n1. Implement input validation and sanitization practices throughout the application to handle untrusted input data.\n2. Use a combination of client-side and server-side validation to ensure that input data is valid and meets specific criteria.\n3. Use parameterized queries and prepared statements to prevent SQL injection attacks.\n4. Regularly review and update input validation and sanitization practices to ensure they are effective and up-to-date.\n\nBy implementing these recommendations, the application can reduce the risk of attacks that exploit weak input fields and improve the overall security of the application.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "The CVE is likely exploitable in this application. Investigation confirmed that the application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access. Although the codebase performs some level of validation to prevent out-of-bounds access, it is unclear if these inputs are properly validated and sanitized to prevent out-of-bounds access. Furthermore, the application does not have clear input validation and sanitization practices in place to handle untrusted input data, increasing the risk of exploitation. The use of the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package in the codebase, combined with the potential for untrusted input data, suggests that the application may be vulnerable to attacks that exploit weak input fields.", + "justification": { + "label": "vulnerable", + "reason": "The application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access, and lacks clear input validation and sanitization practices to handle such data, increasing the risk of exploitation.", + "status": "TRUE" + }, + "intel_score": 82, + "cvss": null + } + ], + "vex": { + "document": { + "category": "csaf_vex", + "csaf_version": "2.0", + "notes": [ + { + "category": "disclaimer", + "title": "Unofficial Content Notice", + "text": "This CSAF document is generated as custom content for internal or experimental use. It is not an official Red Hat security document, has not undergone formal validation or review, and is not digitally signed. The information provided here should not be regarded as authoritative or replace official Red Hat advisories or VEX statements." + } + ], + "publisher": { + "category": "vendor", + "name": "Red Hat Product Security", + "namespace": "https://access.redhat.com/security/" + }, + "title": "ExploitIQ VEX Document", + "tracking": { + "current_release_date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "generator": { + "date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "engine": { + "name": "csaf-tool", + "version": "0.3.2" + } + }, + "id": "CSAF-Document-20251222112315", + "initial_release_date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "revision_history": [ + { + "date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "number": "1", + "summary": "Initial version" + } + ], + "status": "final", + "version": "1" } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is exploitable. Specifically, Checklist Item 2: Assess Input Handling for Markdown Parsing, reveals that the application does not properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop. This definitive answer indicates that the CVE is exploitable, as the application's input handling mechanisms do not meet the necessary security standards to prevent such attacks.", - "justification": { - "label": "vulnerable", - "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE is exploitable due to the application's failure to properly sanitize and validate user input for Markdown parsing, making it vulnerable to specially crafted inputs that can cause an infinite loop.", - "status": "TRUE" }, - "intel_score": 55 + "product_tree": { + "branches": [ + { + "category": "vendor", + "name": "openshift4", + "branches": [ + { + "category": "product_name", + "name": "registry.redhat.io/openshift4/kubernetes-nmstate-rhel8-operator", + "branches": [ + { + "category": "product_version", + "name": "sha256:a5ecbc406c33e464b5b0920513678be0f4aeab3757322ee3e384753098ab5c55", + "product": { + "name": "openshift4 registry.redhat.io/openshift4/kubernetes-nmstate-rhel8-operator sha256:a5ecbc406c33e464b5b0920513678be0f4aeab3757322ee3e384753098ab5c55", + "product_id": "CSAFPID_0001" + } + } + ] + } + ] + } + ] + }, + "vulnerabilities": [ + { + "cve": "CVE-2024-44337", + "notes": [ + { + "category": "description", + "title": "Vulnerability description", + "text": "An issue was discovered in GoGo Protobuf before 1.3.2. plugin/unmarshal/unmarshal.go lacks certain index validation, aka the \"skippy peanut butter\" issue." + }, + { + "category": "summary", + "text": "Improper Input Validation in GoGo Protobuf", + "title": "Vulnerability summary" + }, + { + "category": "general", + "text": "OpenShift Container Platform (OCP), OpenShift ServiceMesh (OSSM) and Red Hat OpenShift Jaeger (RHOSJ) all include code generated by github.com/gogo/protobuf to parse protobuf messages. However, no component is known to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, hence this vulnerability is rated Moderate for OCP, OSSM and RHOSJ.\nOpenShift Virtualization includes code generated by github.com/gogo/protobuf to parse protobuf messages. However, no component of OpenShift Virtualization is known to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, hence this vulnerability is rated Moderate.\nRed Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes (RHACM) includes code generated by github.com/gogo/protobuf to parse protobuf messages. However, no RHACM component is accepting protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources and are used with a limited scope, hence this vulnerability is rated Moderate for RHACM.\nRed Hat Cluster Application Migration (CAM) includes code generated by github.com/gogo/protobuf to parse protobuf messages. However, no CAM component is known to accept protobuf messages from unauthenticated sources, hence this vulnerability is rated Moderate for CAM.\nCryostat-2 is affected as it does ship gogo/protobuf library with it's distribution but the only use for Protobuf would be the Kubernetes/OpenShift API server the operator communicates with and it should be authenticated hence it is affected with Moderate impact.", + "title": "Statement" + }, + { + "category": "analysis", + "title": "ExploitIQ Analysis Summary", + "text": "The CVE is likely exploitable in this application. Investigation confirmed that the application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access. Although the codebase performs some level of validation to prevent out-of-bounds access, it is unclear if these inputs are properly validated and sanitized to prevent out-of-bounds access. Furthermore, the application does not have clear input validation and sanitization practices in place to handle untrusted input data, increasing the risk of exploitation. The use of the `github.com/gogo/protobuf` package in the codebase, combined with the potential for untrusted input data, suggests that the application may be vulnerable to attacks that exploit weak input fields." + }, + { + "category": "analysis", + "title": "ExploitIQ Analysis Justification Reasoning", + "text": "The application processes untrusted input data that could be used to craft malicious protobuf messages, potentially leading to an out-of-bounds access, and lacks clear input validation and sanitization practices to handle such data, increasing the risk of exploitation." + } + ], + "product_status": { + "known_affected": [ + "CSAFPID_0001" + ] + }, + "threats": [ + { + "category": "impact", + "details": "Important", + "date": "2025-12-22T09:23:15Z", + "product_ids": [ + "CSAFPID_0001" + ] + } + ], + "remediations": [ + { + "category": "vendor_fix", + "details": "Upgrade to the first patched version(s): github.com/gogo/protobuf:1.3.2.", + "product_ids": [ + "CSAFPID_0001" + ] + } + ] + } + ] } - ] + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/f329e389-c9d0-44bf-8d3e-123cb0ab05e2.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/f329e389-c9d0-44bf-8d3e-123cb0ab05e2.json index 5e1f292b..7bf484aa 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/f329e389-c9d0-44bf-8d3e-123cb0ab05e2.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/f329e389-c9d0-44bf-8d3e-123cb0ab05e2.json @@ -5902,38 +5902,41 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-1485", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of `parent` or `plugin` Keywords: Review the code within the container image to check if devfiles are being parsed that use the `parent` or `plugin` keywords. This is the specific trigger for the vulnerability, and identifying such usage is crucial for assessing exploitability.", - "response": "The usage of `parent` or `plugin` keywords in the code within the container image can be verified by accessing the container image's file system and searching for `devfile.yaml` or `devfile.json` files that contain these keywords.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Devfile Parsing Logic: Evaluate how devfiles are parsed within the application. Are there any validation or sanitization checks in place for devfile contents, especially for the `parent` or `plugin` keywords? Understanding the parsing logic will help in determining the likelihood of exploitation.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I was unable to find any specific information about the devfile parsing logic within the application, including any validation or sanitization checks for devfile contents, especially for the `parent` or `plugin` keywords. However, I can suggest that the application likely uses a parsing library or framework to process devfiles, and it's possible that this library or framework includes some level of validation or sanitization. Without further information or access to the application's codebase, it's difficult to determine the exact parsing logic and potential vulnerabilities.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Inspect Cleanup Process: Investigate the cleanup process after decompression. Are there any safeguards in place to prevent overwriting or deleting files outside of the intended archive directory? The vulnerability specifically mentions the cleanup process as a vector for exploitation, so assessing its security is vital.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find specific information about the cleanup process and its potential vulnerabilities in container images. However, based on my understanding of the vulnerability, I can infer that the cleanup process after decompression is a critical component that requires careful attention to prevent potential security risks. It is essential to ensure that the cleanup process is properly implemented and secured to prevent overwriting or deleting files outside of the intended archive directory.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review User Interaction: Since the CVE mentions that an unauthenticated remote attacker needs to trick a user into parsing a malicious devfile, assess the user interaction points within the application. Are there any mechanisms in place that could prevent or limit the parsing of untrusted devfiles by users?", - "response": "Based on general knowledge of application security, common mechanisms that could prevent or limit the parsing of untrusted devfiles by users include input validation and sanitization, secure file upload handling, and user authentication and authorization. However, without specific information about the application's architecture and security features, it is impossible to determine if these mechanisms are in place.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **potentially exploitable**. \n\nThe investigation found that the usage of `parent` or `plugin` keywords in the code within the container image can be verified, which is a specific trigger for the vulnerability. However, the assessment of devfile parsing logic, cleanup process, and user interaction points were inconclusive due to lack of specific information. Therefore, it is crucial to further investigate these areas to determine the likelihood of exploitation.", - "justification": { - "label": "uncertain", - "reason": "The analysis is inconclusive due to a lack of specific information regarding devfile parsing logic, cleanup process, and user interaction points, making it uncertain whether the package is exploitable.", - "status": "UNKNOWN" - }, - "intel_score": 71 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-1485", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Verify Usage of `parent` or `plugin` Keywords: Review the code within the container image to check if devfiles are being parsed that use the `parent` or `plugin` keywords. This is the specific trigger for the vulnerability, and identifying such usage is crucial for assessing exploitability.", + "response": "The usage of `parent` or `plugin` keywords in the code within the container image can be verified by accessing the container image's file system and searching for `devfile.yaml` or `devfile.json` files that contain these keywords.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess Devfile Parsing Logic: Evaluate how devfiles are parsed within the application. Are there any validation or sanitization checks in place for devfile contents, especially for the `parent` or `plugin` keywords? Understanding the parsing logic will help in determining the likelihood of exploitation.", + "response": "Unfortunately, I was unable to find any specific information about the devfile parsing logic within the application, including any validation or sanitization checks for devfile contents, especially for the `parent` or `plugin` keywords. However, I can suggest that the application likely uses a parsing library or framework to process devfiles, and it's possible that this library or framework includes some level of validation or sanitization. Without further information or access to the application's codebase, it's difficult to determine the exact parsing logic and potential vulnerabilities.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Inspect Cleanup Process: Investigate the cleanup process after decompression. Are there any safeguards in place to prevent overwriting or deleting files outside of the intended archive directory? The vulnerability specifically mentions the cleanup process as a vector for exploitation, so assessing its security is vital.", + "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find specific information about the cleanup process and its potential vulnerabilities in container images. However, based on my understanding of the vulnerability, I can infer that the cleanup process after decompression is a critical component that requires careful attention to prevent potential security risks. It is essential to ensure that the cleanup process is properly implemented and secured to prevent overwriting or deleting files outside of the intended archive directory.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review User Interaction: Since the CVE mentions that an unauthenticated remote attacker needs to trick a user into parsing a malicious devfile, assess the user interaction points within the application. Are there any mechanisms in place that could prevent or limit the parsing of untrusted devfiles by users?", + "response": "Based on general knowledge of application security, common mechanisms that could prevent or limit the parsing of untrusted devfiles by users include input validation and sanitization, secure file upload handling, and user authentication and authorization. However, without specific information about the application's architecture and security features, it is impossible to determine if these mechanisms are in place.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **potentially exploitable**. \n\nThe investigation found that the usage of `parent` or `plugin` keywords in the code within the container image can be verified, which is a specific trigger for the vulnerability. However, the assessment of devfile parsing logic, cleanup process, and user interaction points were inconclusive due to lack of specific information. Therefore, it is crucial to further investigate these areas to determine the likelihood of exploitation.", + "justification": { + "label": "uncertain", + "reason": "The analysis is inconclusive due to a lack of specific information regarding devfile parsing logic, cleanup process, and user interaction points, making it uncertain whether the package is exploitable.", + "status": "UNKNOWN" + }, + "intel_score": 71 + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/f4093fbd-1030-4ff0-ba5b-a9289fe113cc.json b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/f4093fbd-1030-4ff0-ba5b-a9289fe113cc.json index 65c1f947..ff428827 100644 --- a/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/f4093fbd-1030-4ff0-ba5b-a9289fe113cc.json +++ b/src/test/resources/devservices/reports/f4093fbd-1030-4ff0-ba5b-a9289fe113cc.json @@ -6201,38 +6201,41 @@ } ] }, - "output": [ - { - "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-0406", - "checklist": [ - { - "input": "Verify Usage of `mholt/archiver` Package: Check if the `mholt/archiver` package is being used within the containerized application, specifically versions 3.0.0 to 3.5.1. Look for any imports or usage of this package in the codebase.", - "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information that confirms the usage of the `mholt/archiver` package within the containerized application, specifically versions 3.0.0 to 3.5.1. However, I can suggest that you manually review the container image's codebase to search for imports or usage of the `mholt/archiver` package.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Assess Tar File Handling: Evaluate how the application handles tar files, especially those that are unpacked or processed using the `mholt/archiver` package. Check if there are any safeguards in place to prevent the creation or overwriting of files outside of the intended directory.", - "response": "The application's handling of tar files using the `mholt/archiver` package should be assessed for potential vulnerabilities. While specific information on vulnerabilities in the package is not available, general security practices such as input validation, secure file system operations, and access controls can help prevent the creation or overwriting of files outside of the intended directory.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Review Path Construction Logic: Inspect the codebase for any instances where pathnames are constructed using external input. Ensure that the application properly neutralizes special elements within the pathname, such as '../' or '/' separators, to prevent path traversal attacks.", - "response": "To review the path construction logic, developers should inspect the codebase for any instances where pathnames are constructed using external input. They should ensure that the application properly neutralizes special elements within the pathname, such as '../' or '/' separators, to prevent path traversal attacks. This can be achieved by using secure coding practices, such as:\n\n* Validating and sanitizing user-input data before using it to construct file paths or URLs.\n* Using canonicalization to normalize file paths and prevent directory traversal attacks.\n* Avoiding the use of user-input data in file paths or URLs whenever possible.\n* Using secure file I/O and URL manipulation functions that prevent path traversal attacks.\n\nNote: The specific implementation details may vary depending on the programming language and framework used in the application.", - "intermediate_steps": null - }, - { - "input": "Check for Input Validation: Assess the input validation practices within the application, particularly for inputs that are used to construct pathnames or process tar files. Ensure that the application properly validates and sanitizes inputs to prevent malicious data from being used to exploit the vulnerability.", - "response": "The application should properly validate and sanitize log data to prevent malicious data from being used to exploit the Log4j vulnerability, particularly when constructing pathnames or processing tar files. This includes validating user input, sanitizing log data, and using secure coding practices to prevent the introduction of malicious data.", - "intermediate_steps": null - } - ], - "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not exploitable** with certainty. However, there are some potential vulnerabilities that require further investigation. \n\nThe only checklist item with a definitive answer is Checklist Item 1, which states that the usage of the `mholt/archiver` package within the containerized application could not be confirmed. The other checklist items (2, 3, and 4) provide general security recommendations and best practices, but do not provide conclusive evidence of exploitability. Therefore, without further investigation, the CVE's exploitability remains uncertain.", - "justification": { - "label": "uncertain", - "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE's exploitability remains uncertain due to lack of conclusive evidence, requiring further investigation to determine the package's exploitability status.", - "status": "UNKNOWN" - }, - "intel_score": 44 - } - ] + "output": { + "analysis": [ + { + "vuln_id": "CVE-2024-0406", + "checklist": [ + { + "input": "Verify Usage of `mholt/archiver` Package: Check if the `mholt/archiver` package is being used within the containerized application, specifically versions 3.0.0 to 3.5.1. Look for any imports or usage of this package in the codebase.", + "response": "Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information that confirms the usage of the `mholt/archiver` package within the containerized application, specifically versions 3.0.0 to 3.5.1. However, I can suggest that you manually review the container image's codebase to search for imports or usage of the `mholt/archiver` package.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Assess Tar File Handling: Evaluate how the application handles tar files, especially those that are unpacked or processed using the `mholt/archiver` package. Check if there are any safeguards in place to prevent the creation or overwriting of files outside of the intended directory.", + "response": "The application's handling of tar files using the `mholt/archiver` package should be assessed for potential vulnerabilities. While specific information on vulnerabilities in the package is not available, general security practices such as input validation, secure file system operations, and access controls can help prevent the creation or overwriting of files outside of the intended directory.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Review Path Construction Logic: Inspect the codebase for any instances where pathnames are constructed using external input. Ensure that the application properly neutralizes special elements within the pathname, such as '../' or '/' separators, to prevent path traversal attacks.", + "response": "To review the path construction logic, developers should inspect the codebase for any instances where pathnames are constructed using external input. They should ensure that the application properly neutralizes special elements within the pathname, such as '../' or '/' separators, to prevent path traversal attacks. This can be achieved by using secure coding practices, such as:\n\n* Validating and sanitizing user-input data before using it to construct file paths or URLs.\n* Using canonicalization to normalize file paths and prevent directory traversal attacks.\n* Avoiding the use of user-input data in file paths or URLs whenever possible.\n* Using secure file I/O and URL manipulation functions that prevent path traversal attacks.\n\nNote: The specific implementation details may vary depending on the programming language and framework used in the application.", + "intermediate_steps": null + }, + { + "input": "Check for Input Validation: Assess the input validation practices within the application, particularly for inputs that are used to construct pathnames or process tar files. Ensure that the application properly validates and sanitizes inputs to prevent malicious data from being used to exploit the vulnerability.", + "response": "The application should properly validate and sanitize log data to prevent malicious data from being used to exploit the Log4j vulnerability, particularly when constructing pathnames or processing tar files. This includes validating user input, sanitizing log data, and using secure coding practices to prevent the introduction of malicious data.", + "intermediate_steps": null + } + ], + "summary": "Based on the provided Checklist and Findings, the CVE is **not exploitable** with certainty. However, there are some potential vulnerabilities that require further investigation. \n\nThe only checklist item with a definitive answer is Checklist Item 1, which states that the usage of the `mholt/archiver` package within the containerized application could not be confirmed. The other checklist items (2, 3, and 4) provide general security recommendations and best practices, but do not provide conclusive evidence of exploitability. Therefore, without further investigation, the CVE's exploitability remains uncertain.", + "justification": { + "label": "uncertain", + "reason": "The analysis concludes that the CVE's exploitability remains uncertain due to lack of conclusive evidence, requiring further investigation to determine the package's exploitability status.", + "status": "UNKNOWN" + }, + "intel_score": 44 + } + ], + "vex": null + } } \ No newline at end of file