An incorrect access control flaw was found in the kiali-operator in versions before 1.33.0 and before 1.24.7. This flaw allows an attacker with a basic level of access to the cluster (to deploy a kiali operand) to use this vulnerability and deploy a given image to anywhere in the cluster, potentially gaining access to privileged service account tokens. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.

A NULL pointer dereference was found in pkg/proxy/envoy/v2/debug.go getResourceVersion in Istio pilot before 1.5.0-alpha.0. If a particular HTTP GET request is made to the pilot API endpoint, it is possible to cause the Go runtime to panic (resulting in a denial of service to the istio-pilot application).

An insufficient JWT validation vulnerability was found in Kiali versions 0.4.0 to 1.15.0 and was fixed in Kiali version 1.15.1, wherein a remote attacker could abuse this flaw by stealing a valid JWT cookie and using that to spoof a user session, possibly gaining privileges to view and alter the Istio configuration.

A hard-coded cryptographic key vulnerability in the default configuration file was found in Kiali, all versions prior to 1.15.1. A remote attacker could abuse this flaw by creating their own JWT signed tokens and bypass Kiali authentication mechanisms, possibly gaining privileges to view and alter the Istio configuration.

CNCF Envoy through 1.13.0 may consume excessive amounts of memory when proxying HTTP/1.1 requests or responses with many small (i.e. 1 byte) chunks.

An insecure modification vulnerability in the /etc/passwd file was found in all versions of OpenShift ServiceMesh (maistra) before 1.0.8 in the openshift/istio-kialia-rhel7-operator-container. An attacker with access to the container could use this flaw to modify /etc/passwd and escalate their privileges.

Istio versions 1.2.10 (End of Life) and prior, 1.3 through 1.3.7, and 1.4 through 1.4.3 allows authentication bypass. The Authentication Policy exact-path matching logic can allow unauthorized access to HTTP paths even if they are configured to be only accessed after presenting a valid JWT token. For example, an attacker can add a ? or # character to a URI that would otherwise satisfy an exact-path match.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of frames with an empty payload and without the end-of-stream flag. These frames can be DATA, HEADERS, CONTINUATION and/or PUSH_PROMISE. The peer spends time processing each frame disproportionate to attack bandwidth. This can consume excess CPU.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.