Envoy is a cloud-native edge/middle/service proxy. Envoy does not decode escaped slash sequences `%2F` and `%5C` in HTTP URL paths in versions 1.18.2 and before. A remote attacker may craft a path with escaped slashes, e.g. `/something%2F..%2Fadmin`, to bypass access control, e.g. a block on `/admin`. A backend server could then decode slash sequences and normalize path and provide an attacker access beyond the scope provided for by the access control policy. ### Impact Escalation of Privileges when using RBAC or JWT filters with enforcement based on URL path. Users with back end servers that interpret `%2F` and `/` and `%5C` and `\` interchangeably are impacted. ### Attack Vector URL paths containing escaped slash characters delivered by untrusted client. Patches in versions 1.18.3, 1.17.3, 1.16.4, 1.15.5 contain new path normalization option to decode escaped slash characters. As a workaround, if back end servers treat `%2F` and `/` and `%5C` and `\` interchangeably and a URL path based access control is configured, one may reconfigure the back end server to not treat `%2F` and `/` and `%5C` and `\` interchangeably.
Envoy before 1.16.1 logs an incorrect downstream address because it considers only the directly connected peer, not the information in the proxy protocol header. This affects situations with tcp-proxy as the network filter (not HTTP filters).
Envoy through 1.15.0 only considers the first value when multiple header values are present for some HTTP headers. Envoy’s setCopy() header map API does not replace all existing occurences of a non-inline header.
In Envoy before versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, and 1.15.0 when validating TLS certificates, Envoy would incorrectly allow a wildcard DNS Subject Alternative Name apply to multiple subdomains. For example, with a SAN of *.example.com, Envoy would incorrectly allow nested.subdomain.example.com, when it should only allow subdomain.example.com. This defect applies to both validating a client TLS certificate in mTLS, and validating a server TLS certificate for upstream connections. This vulnerability is only applicable to situations where an untrusted entity can obtain a signed wildcard TLS certificate for a domain of which you only intend to trust a subdomain of. For example, if you intend to trust api.mysubdomain.example.com, and an untrusted actor can obtain a signed TLS certificate for *.example.com or *.com. Configurations are vulnerable if they use verify_subject_alt_name in any Envoy version, or if they use match_subject_alt_names in version 1.14 or later. This issue has been fixed in Envoy versions 1.12.6, 1.13.4, 1.14.4, 1.15.0.
Envoy version 1.14.2, 1.13.2, 1.12.4 or earlier is susceptible to increased memory usage in the case where an HTTP/2 client requests a large payload but does not send enough window updates to consume the entire stream and does not reset the stream.
Envoy version 1.14.2, 1.13.2, 1.12.4 or earlier may consume excessive amounts of memory when processing HTTP/1.1 headers with long field names or requests with long URLs.
Envoy version 1.14.2, 1.13.2, 1.12.4 or earlier may consume excessive amounts of memory when proxying HTTP/2 requests or responses with many small (i.e. 1 byte) data frames.
Istio through 1.5.1 and Envoy through 1.14.1 have a data-leak issue. If there is a TCP connection (negotiated with SNI over HTTPS) to *.example.com, a request for a domain concurrently configured explicitly (e.g., abc.example.com) is sent to the server(s) listening behind *.example.com. The outcome should instead be 421 Misdirected Request. Imagine a shared caching forward proxy re-using an HTTP/2 connection for a large subnet with many users. If a victim is interacting with abc.example.com, and a server (for abc.example.com) recycles the TCP connection to the forward proxy, the victim's browser may suddenly start sending sensitive data to a *.example.com server. This occurs because the forward proxy between the victim and the origin server reuses connections (which obeys the specification), but neither Istio nor Envoy corrects this by sending a 421 error. Similarly, this behavior voids the security model browsers have put in place between domains.