A flaw was found in Quay. Clickjacking is when an attacker uses multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they intend to click on the top-level page. During the pentest, it has been detected that the config-editor page is vulnerable to clickjacking. This flaw allows an attacker to trick an administrator user into clicking on buttons on the config-editor panel, possibly reconfiguring some parts of the Quay instance.

The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.

A flaw was found in Quay. Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks force a user to perform unwanted actions in an application. During the pentest, it was detected that the config-editor page is vulnerable to CSRF. The config-editor page is used to configure the Quay instance. By coercing the victim’s browser into sending an attacker-controlled request from another domain, it is possible to reconfigure the Quay instance (including adding users with admin privileges).

A flaw was found in the Quay registry. While the image labels created through Quay undergo validation both in the UI and backend by applying a regex (validation.py), the same validation is not performed when the label comes from an image. This flaw allows an attacker to publish a malicious image to a public registry containing a script that can be executed via Cross-site scripting (XSS).

A flaw was found in python. In algorithms with quadratic time complexity using non-binary bases, when using int("text"), a system could take 50ms to parse an int string with 100,000 digits and 5s for 1,000,000 digits (float, decimal, int.from_bytes(), and int() for binary bases 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 are not affected). The highest threat from this vulnerability is to system availability.

A flaw was found in Keystone. There is a time lag (up to one hour in a default configuration) between when security policy says a token should be revoked from when it is actually revoked. This could allow a remote administrator to secretly maintain access for longer than expected.

A privilege escalation flaw was found in Podman. This flaw allows an attacker to publish a malicious image to a public registry. Once this image is downloaded by a potential victim, the vulnerability is triggered after a user runs the 'podman top' command. This action gives the attacker access to the host filesystem, leading to information disclosure or denial of service.

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay, where it has a persistent Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability when displaying a repository's notification. This flaw allows an attacker to trick a user into performing a malicious action to impersonate the target user. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to confidentiality, integrity, as well as system availability.

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay, where it does not properly protect the authorization token when authorizing email addresses for repository email notifications. This flaw allows an attacker to add email addresses they do not own to repository notifications.

A vulnerability was found in the Quay web application. Sessions in the Quay web application never expire. An attacker, able to gain access to a session, could use it to control or delete a user's container repository. Red Hat Quay 2 and 3 are vulnerable to this issue.

An information disclosure vulnerability was found in Red Hat Quay in versions before 3.3.1. This flaw allows an attacker who can create a build trigger in a repository, to disclose the names of robot accounts and the existence of private repositories within any namespace.

A flaw was found in the way Red Hat Quay stores robot account tokens in plain text. An attacker able to perform database queries in the Red Hat Quay database could use the tokens to read or write container images stored in the registry.

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.