Improper synchronization of the userTokens map in the API server in Canonical Juju 4.0.5, 3.6.20, and 2.9.56 may allow an authenticated user to possibly cause a denial of service on the server or possibly reuse a single-use discharge token.

In Juju versions prior to 2.9.57 and 3.6.21, an authorization issue exists in the Controller facade. An authenticated user can call the CloudSpec API method to extract the cloud credentials used to bootstrap the controller. This allows a low-privileged user to access sensitive credentials. This issue is resolved in Juju versions 2.9.57 and 3.6.21.

Juju is an open source application orchestration engine that enables any application operation on any infrastructure at any scale through special operators called ‘charms’. From versions 2.9 to before 2.9.56 and 3.6 to before 3.6.19, it is possible that a compromised workload machine under a Juju controller can read any log file for any entity in any model at any level. This issue has been patched in versions 2.9.56 and 3.6.19.

Juju is an open source application orchestration engine that enables any application operation on any infrastructure at any scale through special operators called ‘charms’. From versions 2.9 to before 2.9.56 and 3.6 to before 3.6.19, any authenticated user, machine or controller under a Juju controller can modify the resources of an application within the entire controller. This issue has been patched in versions 2.9.56 and 3.6.19.

A vulnerability was identified in Juju from version 3.2.0 until 3.6.19 and from version 4.0 until 4.0.4, where the internal Dqlite database cluster fails to perform proper TLS client and server authentication. Specifically, the Juju controller's database endpoint does not validate client certificates when a new node attempts to join the cluster. An unauthenticated attacker with network reachability to the Juju controller's Dqlite port can exploit this flaw to join the database cluster. Once joined, the attacker gains full read and write access to the underlying database, allowing for total data compromise.

In Juju from version 3.0.0 through 3.6.18, the authorization of the "secret-set" tool is not performed correctly, which allows a grantee to update the secret content, and can lead to reading or updating other secrets. When the "secret-set" tool logs an error in an exploitation attempt, the secret is still updated contrary to expectations, and the new value is visible to both the owner and the grantee.

A race condition in the secrets management subsystem of Juju versions 3.0.0 through 3.6.18 allows an authenticated unit agent to claim ownership of a newly initialized secret. Between generating a Juju Secret ID and creating the secret's first revision, an attacker authenticated as another unit agent can claim ownership of a known secret. This leads to the attacking unit being able to read the content of the initial secret revision.

In Juju from version 3.0.0 through 3.6.18, when a secret owner grants permissions to a secret to a grantee, the secret owner relies exclusively on a predictable XID of the secret to verify ownership. This allows a malicious grantee which can request secrets to predict past secrets granted by the same secret owner to different grantees, allowing them to use the resources granted by those past secrets. Successful exploitation relies on a very specific configuration, specific data semantic, and the administrator having the need to deploy at least two different applications, one of them controlled by the attacker.

An authorization bypass vulnerability in the Vault secrets back-end implementation of Juju versions 3.1.6 through 3.6.18 allows an authenticated unit agent to perform unauthorized updates to secret revisions. With sufficient information, an attacker can poison any existing secret revision within the scope of that Vault secret back-end.

Vulnerable cross-model authorization in juju. If a charm's cross-model permissions are revoked or expire, a malicious user who is able to update database records can mint an invalid macaroon that is incorrectly validated by the juju controller, enabling a charm to maintain otherwise revoked or expired permissions. This allows a charm to continue relating to another charm in a cross-model relation, and use their workload without their permission. No fix is available as of the time of writing.