Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4 vulnerabilities

A trust-boundary flaw in CRI-O's sandbox state persistence allows attacker-influenced pod metadata to overwrite CRI-O's own reserved sandbox bookkeeping; once reloaded as trusted after a restart, a later container recreate in that sandbox can expose a host-side runtime-management resource inside the container, enabling container escape.

A flaw was found in GCC. When an application calls the erase_if function on a binary heap priority queue in libstdc++, the library reallocates storage but fails to update its internal entry pointer. An attacker capable of triggering this operation can exploit this use-after-free condition, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) via an application crash or potential memory corruption.

A use-after-free vulnerability was found in QEMU's 9pfs subsystem. A race condition between the main thread and a worker thread when processing concurrent Tlcreate and Twalk requests allows a malicious guest user to craft a fid path containing stale heap data, bypassing directory traversal restrictions and escaping the shared directory boundary. This can lead to arbitrary host file read/write and code execution (VM escape) as the QEMU process user.

A flaw was found in rpcbind. This vulnerability allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending a large number of unique requests. The rpcbind service records previously unseen RPC (Remote Procedure Call) statistics in unbounded in-memory lists, leading to persistent memory growth and increased CPU usage. This can degrade or exhaust service availability.

A flaw was found in libstdc++. An integer overflow can occur when processing large inputs to the aligned operator new in the C++ library. This vulnerability could lead to an undersized memory allocation, potentially causing memory corruption or application instability.

A heap-based buffer overflow was found in the DHCPv6 and TFTP response builders of libslirp. When the host is configured with a small interface MTU, a guest-supplied DHCPv6 CLIENTID option or TFTP blksize option can overflow the reply buffer with attacker-controlled content and length, resulting in denial of service and potentially arbitrary code execution in the host process. The default interface MTU is not affected.

A vulnerability in CRI-O checkpoint restore allows a user who can create a pod from a malicious checkpointed container to bypass the destination Kubernetes security context. The restored process may retain credentials, Linux capabilities, no_new_privs, and seccomp state from the checkpoint instead of enforcing the destination configuration. This can allow execution with elevated privileges across the container security boundary. Affected upstream supported versions are CRI-O 1.34 and later. Downstream Red Hat products are affected from OCP 4.17 onward. Fixes have been applied to supported branches but are not yet released. Exploitation requires permission to create a pod from a malicious checkpoint image and checkpoint restore functionality to be available.

A vulnerability was found in CRI-O related to the container checkpoint and restore feature. When CRI-O is configured to restore containers from checkpoint archives, insufficient validation of restore metadata may allow a user with sufficient privileges to perform unintended operations on the host filesystem. Successful exploitation requires that container checkpoint and restore functionality is enabled, which is not the default configuration. An attacker must also be able to trigger restoration of a container from untrusted checkpoint content.

A flaw was found in QEMU. The VAPIC setup hypercall in hw/i386/vapic.c does not validate that the writable RAM alias remains within the option ROM window. A privileged guest user on a Q35/KVM machine can position this alias over locked SMRAM, bypassing chipset D_LCK protection and injecting code into System Management Mode memory.

A flaw was found in sequoia-openpgp. The library incorrectly infers key flags for older certificates when a key flags subpacket is missing, leading to a discrepancy in how key capabilities are viewed. This key flag confusion allows an attacker to bypass the back-signature check. Consequently, an attacker can illegitimately bind an arbitrary subkey to their own certificate and forge signatures, completely compromising cryptographic integrity.