CVE-2024-23332
Notaryproject Notation-Go
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2024-23332 is a medium-severity Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release (CWE-672) vulnerability in Notaryproject Notation-Go. Its CVSS base score is 4.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 21th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and IA-5 (Authenticator Management) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-0257
Vulnerability Data
The Notary Project is a set of specifications and tools intended to provide a cross-industry standard for securing software supply chains by using authentic container images and other OCI artifacts. An external actor with control of a compromised container registry…
more
can provide outdated versions of OCI artifacts, such as Images. This could lead artifact consumers with relaxed trust policies (such as `permissive` instead of `strict`) to potentially use artifacts with signatures that are no longer valid, making them susceptible to any exploits those artifacts may contain. In Notary Project, an artifact publisher can control the validity period of artifact by specifying signature expiry during the signing process. Using shorter signature validity periods along with processes to periodically resign artifacts, allows artifact producers to ensure that their consumers will only receive up-to-date artifacts. Artifact consumers should correspondingly use a `strict` or equivalent trust policy that enforces signature expiry. Together these steps enable use of up-to-date artifacts and safeguard against rollback attack in the event of registry compromise. The Notary Project offers various signature validation options such as `permissive`, `audit` and `skip` to support various scenarios. These scenarios includes 1) situations demanding urgent workload deployment, necessitating the bypassing of expired or revoked signatures; 2) auditing of artifacts lacking signatures without interrupting workload; and 3) skipping of verification for specific images that might have undergone validation through alternative mechanisms. Additionally, the Notary Project supports revocation to ensure the signature freshness. Artifact publishers can sign with short-lived certificates and revoke older certificates when necessary. This revocation serves as a signal to inform artifact consumers that the corresponding unexpired artifact is no longer approved by the publisher. This enables the artifact publisher to control the validity of the signature independently of their ability to manage artifacts in a compromised registry.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement applies current authorizations to every request, directly blocking operations once a resource has been revoked or released.
Authenticator management mandates revocation and replacement procedures that render expired credentials unusable.
Account lifecycle management includes explicit revocation and disabling steps that stop subsequent operations on released accounts or identifiers.
Identifier management requires deallocation and reuse controls that prevent continued use of released identifiers.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect use-after-release but does not prevent it at runtime.
Enforces timely deletion of resources so they cannot be used after release.
Secure-coding rules require checks that prevent operations on freed or expired objects.
Change-management processes can introduce or remove resource-lifetime controls.