Skip to content

Execution Control List (ECL) Is Insecure in Singularity

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 14, 2020 in apptainer/singularity • Updated Jan 20, 2023

Package

gomod github.com/sylabs/singularity (Go)

Affected versions

>= 3.0.0, < 3.6.0

Patched versions

3.6.0

Description

Impact

The Singularity Execution Control List (ECL) allows system administrators to set up a policy that defines rules about what signature(s) must be (or must not be) present on a SIF container image for it to be permitted to run.

In Singularity 3.x versions below 3.6.0, the following issues allow the ECL to be bypassed by a malicious user:

  • Image integrity is not validated when an ECL policy is enforced.
  • The fingerprint required by the ECL is compared against the signature object descriptor(s) in the SIF file, rather than to a cryptographically validated signature. Thus, it is trivial to craft an arbitrary payload which will be permitted to run, even if the attacker does not have access to the private key associated with the fingerprint(s) configured in the ECL.

Patches

These issues are addressed in Singularity 3.6.0.

All users are advised to upgrade to 3.6.0. Note that Singularity 3.6.0 uses a new signature format that is necessarily incompatible with Singularity < 3.6.0 - e.g. Singularity 3.5.3 cannot verify containers signed by 3.6.0.

Version 3.6.0 includes a legacyinsecure option that can be set to legacyinsecure = true in ecl.toml to allow the ECL to perform verification of the older, and insecure, legacy signatures for compatibility with existing containers. This does not guarantee that containers have not been modified since signing, due to other issues in the legacy signature format. The option should be used only to temporarily ease the transition to containers signed with the new 3.6.0 signature format.

Workarounds

This issue affects any installation of Singularity configured to use the Execution Control List (ECL) functionality. There is no workaround if ECL is required.

For more information

General questions about the impact of the advisory / changes made in the 3.6.0 release can be asked in the:

Any sensitive security concerns should be directed to: [email protected]

See our Security Policy here: https://sylabs.io/security-policy

References

@dtrudg dtrudg published to apptainer/singularity Jul 14, 2020
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 14, 2020
Reviewed May 24, 2021
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Dec 20, 2021
Last updated Jan 20, 2023

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

0.182%
(56th percentile)

CVE ID

CVE-2020-13845

GHSA ID

GHSA-pmfr-63c2-jr5c

Source code

No known source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.