solidfire driver ignores certificates

Bug #1432901 reported by Eric Brown
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Cinder
New
Undecided
Unassigned
OpenStack Security Advisory
Incomplete
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

The solidfire driver passes verify=False when initiating an https connection. This in effect bypasses any certificate verification and allows the user to be vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. Certificates should always be trusted before passing credentials. To support cases with self-signed certificates, typically an option to ignore errors is exposed in a config file (cinder.conf).

https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/drivers/solidfire.py#L198

        req = requests.post(url,
                            data=json.dumps(payload),
                            auth=(endpoint['login'], endpoint['passwd']),
                            verify=False,
                            timeout=30)

Tags: security
Revision history for this message
Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

Since this report concerns a possible security risk, an incomplete security advisory task has been added while the core security reviewers for the affected project or projects confirm the bug and discuss the scope of any vulnerability along with potential solutions.

Changed in ossa:
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Jeremy Stanley (fungi) wrote :

This problem is already pointed out in public security hardening bug 1188189. The last mention of the solidfire driver there was still using httplib, but when change https://review.openstack.org/127399 switched it to requests it maintained compatible behavior (e.g. it did not suddenly start validating certificates).

I recommend we switch this to public and mark it as a duplicate report.

Revision history for this message
Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

Agreed, let's open this (and mark it duplicate) on Monday unless someone disagrees.

Thierry Carrez (ttx)
information type: Private Security → Public
tags: added: security
Revision history for this message
John Griffith (john-griffith) wrote :

Late to the party, but for record keeping.. yes duplicate.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.