Re: CVE-2022-30550: Privilege escalation possible in dovecot when similar master and non-master passdbs are used

[Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi () dovecot fi>]

> On 06/07/2022 16:54 EEST Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi () dovecot fi> wrote:
>
>  
> Affected product: Dovecot IMAP Server 
> Internal reference: DOV-5320
> Vulnerability type: Improper Access Control (CWE-284) 
> Vulnerable version: 2.2
> Vulnerable component: submission 
> Report confidence: Confirmed 
> Solution status: Fixed in main
> Researcher credits: Julian Brook (julezman)
> Vendor notification: 2022-05-06 
> CVE reference: CVE-2022-30550
> CVSS: 6.8 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N) 
>
> Vulnerability Details: 
> When two passdb configuration entries exist in Dovecot configuration, which have the same driver and args settings, 
> the incorrect username_filter and mechanism settings can be applied to passdb definitions. These incorrectly applied 
> settings can lead to an unintended security configuration and can permit privilege escalation with certain 
> configurations involving master user authentication.
>
> Dovecot documentation does not advise against the use of passdb definitions which have the same driver and args 
> settings. One such configuration would be where an administrator wishes to use the same pam configuration or passwd 
> file for both normal and master users but use the username_filter setting to restrict which of the users is able to 
> be a master user.
>
> Risk: 
> If same passwd file or PAM is used for both normal and master users, it is possible for attacker to become master 
> user.
>
> Workaround:
> Always authenticate master users from different source than regular users, e.g. using a separate passwd file. 
> Alternatively, you can use global ACLs to ensure that only legimate master users have priviledged access.
>
> Fix:
> This has been fixed in main branch. See https://github.com/dovecot/core/compare/7bad6a24%5E..a1022072.patch

Hi all, unfortunately two mistakes crept into this notification. Apologies for that.

The correct component for this is "auth", and the affected version should have been "2.2 and newer".

Regards,
Aki Tuomi