Ceph StorageApplication · Redhat
CVE-2022-0670
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA flaw was found in Openstack manilla owning a Ceph File system "share", which enables the owner to read/write any manilla share or entire file system. The vulnerability is due to a bug in the "volumes" plugin in Ceph Manager. This allows an attacker to compromise Confidentiality and Integrity of a file system. Fixed in RHCS 5.2 and Ceph 17.2.2.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceA broken access control vulnerability in the Ceph Manager volumes plugin allows a Manila share owner to bypass authorization and read/write to any Manila share or the entire Ceph filesystem, rather than being restricted to their own assigned share. This is a privilege escalation issue in the OpenStack Manila Ceph integration.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Ceph StorageApplication
< 5.2
FedoraOperating system
= 35= 36>= 15.0.0, < 15.2.17>= 16.0.0, < 16.2.10>= 17.0.0, < 17.2.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Ceph Manager versionRun 'ceph mgr module versions' or 'ceph version' to obtain the installed Ceph Manager versionAffected if The version falls below 15.2.17, 16.2.10, or 17.2.2, or is any version below 5.2 for Red Hat Ceph Storage, or matches Fedora 35 or 36 with Ceph integration
-
Confirm Manila Ceph integration is activeCheck if OpenStack Manila is deployed and configured to use a Ceph backend by reviewing Manila configuration files or running 'manila service-list' to identify share backendsAffected if Manila is configured with a CephFS backend driver (such as CephFS via cephfsnative or cephfs)
-
Verify volumes plugin is enabledRun 'ceph mgr module ls' to list enabled Ceph Manager modules, then check if the 'volumes' plugin appears in the enabled listAffected if The volumes module is loaded and active in the Ceph Manager configuration
-
Check Manila share isolationTest share access controls by creating two shares under different owner accounts and attempting cross-owner read/write operations, or review Manila share access rules and Ceph filesystem capabilities for the share pathsAffected if Shares created by one owner can be accessed or modified by another Manila user who is not the owner, indicating broken authorization enforcement
-
Review Ceph filesystem permissions for Manila sharesInspect the Ceph filesystem layout under the Manila share pool (typically /volumes or similar) using 'ceph fs ls' and 'ceph auth list' to verify path-based restrictionsAffected if Cephx keys or filesystem caps permit broader access than the specific share path assigned to a user, or if no path restrictions are enforced
The environment is affected if Ceph Manager runs a version prior to 15.2.17, 16.2.10, or 17.2.2 (or prior to 5.2 for Red Hat Ceph Storage), Manila uses a Ceph backend, and the volumes plugin is enabled, allowing unauthorized cross-tenant share access.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped5.215.2.1716.2.10
Upgrade to RHCS 5.2 or Ceph 17.2.2 or later to obtain the fixed Ceph Manager volumes plugin. Prior to upgrading, verify current share isolation policies and consider network segmentation as a compensating control.
Ceph 17.2.2 (or 16.2.10/15.2.17 depending on current branch); RHCS 5.2
- 1. Identify the current Ceph version by running 'ceph --version' or 'rpm -q ceph-common'
- 2. Determine which Ceph release branch you are running (15.x/Quincy, 16.x/Quincy, or 17.x/Quincy)
- 3. For Ceph >= 15.0.0 and < 15.2.17: Upgrade to version 15.2.17
- 4. For Ceph >= 16.0.0 and < 16.2.10: Upgrade to version 16.2.10
- 5. For Ceph >= 17.0.0 and < 17.2.2: Upgrade to version 17.2.2
- 6. For RHCS (Red Hat Ceph Storage): Upgrade to version 5.2
- 7. For Fedora 35/36: Apply vendor patches when available or upgrade to a patched Ceph version
- 8. After upgrade, verify the fix by checking 'ceph --version' shows the patched release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Ceph Storage
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-0670 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-0670 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data