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.

Juju Core's Joyent provider before version 1.25.5 uploads the user's private ssh key.

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.

In Juju versions prior to 3.6.8 and 2.9.52, any authenticated controller user was allowed to upload arbitrary agent binaries to any model or to the controller itself, without verifying model membership or requiring explicit permissions. This enabled the distribution of poisoned binaries to new or upgraded machines, potentially resulting in remote code execution.

The /charms endpoint on a Juju controller lacked sufficient authorization checks, allowing any user with an account on the controller to upload a charm. Uploading a malicious charm that exploits a Zip Slip vulnerability could allow an attacker to gain access to a machine running a unit through the affected charm.

The /log endpoint on a Juju controller lacked sufficient authorization checks, allowing unauthorized users to access debug messages that could contain sensitive information.

An authenticated user who has read access to the juju controller model, may construct a remote request to download an arbitrary file from the controller's filesystem.