Know every vulnerabilitybefore it knows you.
DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.
GHSA-85g2-pmrx-r49q
No affected components available
Summary
Fission runtime pods were created with ServiceAccountName: fission-fetcher, and the fission-fetcher ServiceAccount was granted namespace-wide get on secrets and configmaps (it needs that to load function code, env vars, and config). The runtime pod's automounted token was reachable from inside the user's function container at /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/token, so user-supplied function code inherited the same Kubernetes API privileges and could read any secret or configmap in the function's namespace — far beyond the Function.spec.secrets allowlist that the function specification suggests.
Affected component
pkg/executor/executortype/poolmgr/gp_deployment.go:154-156— pool-manager runtime podServiceAccountName.pkg/executor/executortype/newdeploy/newdeploy.go:225-227— new-deploy runtime podServiceAccountName.pkg/utils/serviceaccount.go:51-64—fission-fetcherRBAC: namespace-widegetonsecrets/configmaps.
Impact
A user able to deploy or update a function in any namespace where Fission runtime pods are scheduled could:
- Read every secret in that namespace (TLS keys, OIDC client secrets, database credentials, cloud provider credentials).
- Read every configmap in that namespace.
- Use those credentials to pivot to other Kubernetes resources or external systems the secrets unlock.
This violates the principle that Function.spec.secrets is the authoritative declaration of which secrets a function can read.
Root cause
The fetcher sidecar legitimately needs the SA token to call the Fission control plane and fetch package archives. Setting ServiceAccountName: fission-fetcher on the pod gives every container in the pod (including the user container) the automounted token. Kubernetes does not provide per-container service-account scoping inside a single pod, so the user container has to be moved into a separate identity / token-mount scheme.
Fix
Released in v1.23.0:
- PR #3366 (commit
fe1842ef):- The user function container now sets
AutomountServiceAccountToken: falseat the container level (via projected-volume token suppression), so the user container no longer sees the pod's SA token even though the fetcher sidecar still does. - The fetcher sidecar retains its existing token mount (separate projected volume) since it needs cluster API access for its own work.
- For the few legitimate use cases where a function needs its own Kubernetes API access, the user is expected to mount a different ServiceAccount via
Function.spec.podspecwith the minimum necessary RBAC (documented separately).
- The user function container now sets
Mitigation (until upgrade)
- Restrict who can create / update
FunctionandPackageCRDs in your cluster — treat the ability to ship function code as equivalent to namespace-wide secret read. - Reduce the
fission-fetcherClusterRole / Role scope where possible (e.g. constrain it to specific named secrets via separate Role bindings). - Add NetworkPolicy egress rules denying function pods access to the Kubernetes API server (this blunts the token even if it leaks).
The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker does not need any special privileges or access rights. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability.
Exploitation attempts have been detected. Elevated vigilance and prompt remediation are advised.
The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard