cvelist/2022/2xxx/CVE-2022-2220.json

{
    "data_type": "CVE",
    "data_format": "MITRE",
    "data_version": "4.0",
    "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ID": "CVE-2022-2220",
        "ASSIGNER": "secalert@redhat.com",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
    },
    "affects": {
        "vendor": {
            "vendor_data": [
                {
                    "vendor_name": "n/a",
                    "product": {
                        "product_data": [
                            {
                                "product_name": "openshfit-router",
                                "version": {
                                    "version_data": [
                                        {
                                            "version_value": "Openshift 4 and 3.11"
                                        }
                                    ]
                                }
                            }
                        ]
                    }
                }
            ]
        }
    },
    "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
            {
                "description": [
                    {
                        "lang": "eng",
                        "value": "CWE-285"
                    }
                ]
            }
        ]
    },
    "references": {
        "reference_data": [
            {
                "refsource": "MISC",
                "name": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2101434",
                "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2101434"
            }
        ]
    },
    "description": {
        "description_data": [
            {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "OpenShift doesn't properly verify subdomain ownership, which allows route takeover. Once a custom route is created, the user must update the DNS provider by creating a canonical name (CNAME) record (if he likes to expose this route externally). The CNAME record should point the custom domain to the OpenShift router as the alias. In a case that the CNAME is not removed when the route is not in use anymore we are dealing with a dangling route. A malicious actor may take over the route."
            }
        ]
    }
}