Sunday, May 30, 2021



### Impact Due to incorrect use of a default URL, `singularity` action commands (`run`/`shell`/`exec`) specifying a container using a `library://` URI will always attempt to retrieve the container from the default remote endpoint (``) rather than the configured remote endpoint. An attacker may be able to push a malicious container to the default remote endpoint with a URI that is identical to the URI used by a victim with a non-default remote endpoint, thus executing the malicious container. Only action commands (`run`/`shell`/`exec`) against `library://` URIs are affected. Other commands such as `pull` / `push` respect the configured remote endpoint. ### Patches All users should upgrade to Singularity 3.7.4 or later. ### Workarounds Users who only interact with the default remote endpoint are not affected. Installations with an execution control list configured to restrict execution to containers signed with specific secure keys are not affected. ### For more information General questions about the impact of the advisory can be asked in the: - [SingularityCE Slack Channel]( - [SingularityCE Mailing List]( Any sensitive security concerns should be directed to: [email protected] See our Security Policy here:

References to Advisories, Solutions, and Tools

References to Advisories, Solutions, and Tools

By selecting these links, you will be leaving NIST webspace.
We have provided these links to other web sites because they
may have information that would be of interest to you. No
inferences should be drawn on account of other sites being
referenced, or not, from this page. There may be other web
sites that are more appropriate for your purpose. NIST does
not necessarily endorse the views expressed, or concur with
the facts presented on these sites. Further, NIST does not
endorse any commercial products that may be mentioned on
these sites. Please address comments about this page to [email protected]

Copyright © 2020 Cyber Details - Vulnerability Database™

Thanks for everything Templateism - You should have written the code a little more complicated