Bug 2169089 (CVE-2023-25725)
Summary: | CVE-2023-25725 haproxy: request smuggling attack in HTTP/1 header parsing | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Other] Security Response | Reporter: | Nick Tait <ntait> |
Component: | vulnerability | Assignee: | Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | high | ||
Version: | unspecified | CC: | alisci, amctagga, andeshmu, aoconnor, askrabec, bniver, dfreiber, flucifre, gmeno, hhorak, jburrell, jjung, jorton, mbenjamin, mhackett, msalle, redhat-bugzilla, rogbas, rohara, security-response-team, sostapov, torben, vereddy, vkumar, zmiele |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Security |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | HAProxy 2.0.31, HAProxy 2.2.29, HAProxy 2.4.22, HAProxy 2.5.12, HAProxy 2.6.9, HAProxy 2.7.3, HAProxy 2.8-dev4 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
Doc Text: |
A flaw was found in HAProxy's headers processing that causes HAProxy to drop important headers fields such as Connection, Content-length, Transfer-Encoding, and Host after having partially processed them. A maliciously crafted HTTP request could be used in an HTTP request smuggling attack to bypass filtering and detection by HAProxy.
|
Story Points: | --- |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2023-05-18 06:44:53 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 2169509, 2169510, 2169511, 2169532, 2169533, 2169534, 2169535, 2169823, 2170060, 2172591, 2172592, 2174174, 2174175 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 2169088 |
Description
Nick Tait
2023-02-11 17:47:59 UTC
Created haproxy tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: fedora-all [bug 2169823] Created haproxy18 tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: epel-all [bug 2170060] When can we expect you to release a patched version. Today it's 3 weeks since CVE-2023-25725 was published This issue has been addressed in the following products: Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.12 Via RHSA-2023:1268 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2023:1268 This issue has been addressed in the following products: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 Via RHSA-2023:1696 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2023:1696 This issue has been addressed in the following products: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Extended Update Support Via RHSA-2023:1978 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2023:1978 This issue has been addressed in the following products: Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 Via RHSA-2023:1325 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2023:1325 This bug is now closed. Further updates for individual products will be reflected on the CVE page(s): https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2023-25725 Increasing this impact to Important after reconsideration. While the difficulty of creating an effective attack on sites behind HAProxy is largely dependent on the site's architecture, the difficulty to affect the Integrity of specially crafted data passed through HAProxy itself is low. Why do you consider RHEL 8 at https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2023-25725 to be "not affected"? As per https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2023-25725, Debian backported the fix for this vulnerability to HAProxy 1.8 (included in 1.8.19-1+deb10u4). > The fix ... applies well as far as v2.0 ... If this is the cause, then I would like to remind that HAProxy 1.8 reached its end-of-life in Q4/2022 at upstream, see https://www.haproxy.org/. From my understanding upstream does not evaluate the applicability of security flaws for unmaintained HAProxy releases (this one was raised in Q1/2023). See also: https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg43229.html > The problem affects all versions at different degrees: […] non-HTX versions (1.9 and before, or 2.0 in legacy mode) will not drop the theader, but will nonetheless pass the faulty request as-is to a server. This means that, while such versions will not be abused to attack a server, if placed at the edge they are not sufficient to protect an internal HAProxy instance either. This issue has been addressed in the following products: Red Hat Ceph Storage 5.3 Via RHSA-2024:0746 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:0746 |