How severe is GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf?

GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf has a CVSS score of 3.8/10, rated LOW. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf?

GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf affects the following packages: github.com/canonical/lxd (Go). Ecosystems affected: Go.

How do I fix GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf?

Update github.com/canonical/lxd to 0.0.0-20240403103450-0e7f2b5bf4d2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf in my Go dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/canonical/lxd. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

How do I mitigate GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

How does O3 Security protect against GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Is GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf?

GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.2%, placing it in the 5th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf?

GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf is classified as CWE-295 (CWE-295). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf was published on December 9, 2024 and was last updated on March 20, 2025. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐹 Go

GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf

LOW

lxd has a restricted TLS certificate privilege escalation when in PKI mode

Also known asCVE-2024-6219GO-2024-3313

Published

Dec 9, 2024

Updated

Mar 20, 2025

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk5th percentile-0.01%

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected

🐹github.com/canonical/lxd

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

If a server.ca file is present in LXD_DIR at LXD start up, LXD is in "PKI mode". In this mode, all clients must have certificates that have been signed by the CA.

The LXD configuration option core.trust_ca_certificates defaults to false. This means that although the client certificate has been signed by the CA, LXD will additionally add the certificate to the trust store and verify it via mTLS.

When a restricted certificate is added to the trust store in this mode, it's restrictions are not honoured, and the client has full access to LXD.

Details

When authorization was refactored to allow for generalisation (at the time for TLS, RBAC, and OpenFGA, see https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12313), PKI mode did not account for the core.trust_ca_certificates configuration option. When this option is enabled, all CA-signed client certificates are given full access to LXD. This cherry-pick from Incus was added to LXD to fix the issue.

The cherry-pick fixed the immediate issue and allowed full access to LXD for CA-signed client certificates when core.trust_ca_certificates is enabled, but did not consider the behaviour of LXD when core.trust_ca_certificates is disabled.

When core.trust_ca_certificates is false, restrictions that are applied to a certificate should be honoured. Instead, they are being ignored due to the presence of a server.ca file in LXD_DIR.

PoC

# Install/initialize LXD
$ snap install lxd --channel 5.21/stable
$ lxd init --auto
$ lxc config set core.https_address=127.0.0.1:8443

# Use easyrsa for configuring CA: https://github.com/OpenVPN/easy-rsa
$ cp -R /usr/share/easy-rsa "/tmp/pki"
$ export EASYRSA_KEY_SIZE=4096
$ cd /tmp/pki
$ ./easyrsa init-pki
$ echo "lxd" | ./easyrsa build-ca nopass
$ ./easyrsa build-client-full lxd-client nopass
$ cp pki/ca.crt /var/snap/lxd/common/lxd/server.ca
$ cp pki/issued/lxd-client.crt ~/snap/lxd/common/config/client.crt
$ cp pki/private/lxd-client.key ~/snap/lxd/common/config/client.key

# Restart daemon.
$ systemctl reload snap.lxd.daemon

# Add a restricted certificate to the trust store.
$ token="$(lxc config trust add --name ca-test --quiet --restricted)"
$ lxc remote add tls "${token}"

# Our client has a CA-signed certificate, but it is restricted, so the client should not be able to view server config.
$ lxc config get tls: core.https_address
127.0.0.1:8443

Impact

I believe this vulnerability is low impact because PKI mode is:

Not the standard or recommended mode of operation for LXD.
While core.trust_ca_certificates defaults to false, we believe that users who enable PKI mode will generally have core.trust_ca_certificates enabled to allow for passwordless PKI with CRL revocation (see https://github.com/canonical/lxd/issues/3832). When this mode is enabled, all clients with CA-signed certificates have root access* anyway.

*Note: If a restricted certificate is added before core.trust_ca_certificates is enabled, the certificate becomes unrestricted. We believe this was the original intention of the PR, but this should be changed to disallow any unintended permission change.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐹Go	`github.com/canonical/lxd`	all versions	0.0.0-20240403103450-0e7f2b5bf4d2

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/canonical/lxd. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update github.com/canonical/lxd to 0.0.0-20240403103450-0e7f2b5bf4d2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary If a `server.ca` file is present in `LXD_DIR` at LXD start up, LXD is in "PKI mode". In this mode, all clients must have certificates that have been signed by the CA. The LXD configuration option `core.trust_ca_certificates` defaults to `false`. This means that although the client certificate has been signed by the CA, LXD will additionally add the certificate to the trust store and verify it via mTLS. When a restricted certificate is added to the trust store in this mode, it's restrictions are not honoured, and the client has full access to LXD. ### Details When authorization

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-jpmc-7p9c-4rxf across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works