Filtered by vendor Kubernetes
Subscriptions
Filtered by product Kubernetes
Subscriptions
Total
59 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-45310 | 4 Docker, Kubernetes, Linux and 1 more | 4 Docker, Kubernetes, Linux Kernel and 1 more | 2025-07-12 | 3.6 Low |
| runc is a CLI tool for spawning and running containers according to the OCI specification. runc 1.1.13 and earlier, as well as 1.2.0-rc2 and earlier, can be tricked into creating empty files or directories in arbitrary locations in the host filesystem by sharing a volume between two containers and exploiting a race with `os.MkdirAll`. While this could be used to create empty files, existing files would not be truncated. An attacker must have the ability to start containers using some kind of custom volume configuration. Containers using user namespaces are still affected, but the scope of places an attacker can create inodes can be significantly reduced. Sufficiently strict LSM policies (SELinux/Apparmor) can also in principle block this attack -- we suspect the industry standard SELinux policy may restrict this attack's scope but the exact scope of protection hasn't been analysed. This is exploitable using runc directly as well as through Docker and Kubernetes. The issue is fixed in runc v1.1.14 and v1.2.0-rc3. Some workarounds are available. Using user namespaces restricts this attack fairly significantly such that the attacker can only create inodes in directories that the remapped root user/group has write access to. Unless the root user is remapped to an actual user on the host (such as with rootless containers that don't use `/etc/sub[ug]id`), this in practice means that an attacker would only be able to create inodes in world-writable directories. A strict enough SELinux or AppArmor policy could in principle also restrict the scope if a specific label is applied to the runc runtime, though neither the extent to which the standard existing policies block this attack nor what exact policies are needed to sufficiently restrict this attack have been thoroughly tested. | ||||
| CVE-2025-4563 | 1 Kubernetes | 1 Kubernetes | 2025-06-27 | 2.7 Low |
| A vulnerability exists in the NodeRestriction admission controller where nodes can bypass dynamic resource allocation authorization checks. When the DynamicResourceAllocation feature gate is enabled, the controller properly validates resource claim statuses during pod status updates but fails to perform equivalent validation during pod creation. This allows a compromised node to create mirror pods that access unauthorized dynamic resources, potentially leading to privilege escalation. | ||||
| CVE-2021-25736 | 3 Kubernetes, Microsoft, Redhat | 3 Kubernetes, Windows, Openshift | 2025-06-12 | 5.8 Medium |
| Kube-proxy on Windows can unintentionally forward traffic to local processes listening on the same port (“spec.ports[*].port”) as a LoadBalancer Service when the LoadBalancer controller does not set the “status.loadBalancer.ingress[].ip” field. Clusters where the LoadBalancer controller sets the “status.loadBalancer.ingress[].ip” field are unaffected. | ||||
| CVE-2015-7561 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 2 Kubernetes, Openshift | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Kubernetes in OpenShift3 allows remote authenticated users to use the private images of other users should they know the name of said image. | ||||
| CVE-2017-1000056 | 1 Kubernetes | 1 Kubernetes | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Kubernetes version 1.5.0-1.5.4 is vulnerable to a privilege escalation in the PodSecurityPolicy admission plugin resulting in the ability to make use of any existing PodSecurityPolicy object. | ||||
| CVE-2017-1002100 | 1 Kubernetes | 1 Kubernetes | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Default access permissions for Persistent Volumes (PVs) created by the Kubernetes Azure cloud provider in versions 1.6.0 to 1.6.5 are set to "container" which exposes a URI that can be accessed without authentication on the public internet. Access to the URI string requires privileged access to the Kubernetes cluster or authenticated access to the Azure portal. | ||||
| CVE-2016-1905 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 2 Kubernetes, Openshift | 2025-04-12 | N/A |
| The API server in Kubernetes does not properly check admission control, which allows remote authenticated users to access additional resources via a crafted patched object. | ||||
| CVE-2015-7528 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 2 Kubernetes, Openshift | 2025-04-12 | N/A |
| Kubernetes before 1.2.0-alpha.5 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary pod logs via a container name. | ||||
| CVE-2016-1906 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 2 Kubernetes, Openshift | 2025-04-12 | N/A |
| Openshift allows remote attackers to gain privileges by updating a build configuration that was created with an allowed type to a type that is not allowed. | ||||
| CVE-2024-7598 | 1 Kubernetes | 1 Kubernetes | 2025-03-20 | 3.1 Low |
| A security issue was discovered in Kubernetes where a malicious or compromised pod could bypass network restrictions enforced by network policies during namespace deletion. The order in which objects are deleted during namespace termination is not defined, and it is possible for network policies to be deleted before the pods that they protect. This can lead to a brief period in which the pods are running, but network policies that should apply to connections to and from the pods are not enforced. | ||||
| CVE-2022-3162 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 2 Kubernetes, Openshift | 2025-03-07 | 6.5 Medium |
| Users authorized to list or watch one type of namespaced custom resource cluster-wide can read custom resources of a different type in the same API group without authorization. Clusters are impacted by this vulnerability if all of the following are true: 1. There are 2+ CustomResourceDefinitions sharing the same API group 2. Users have cluster-wide list or watch authorization on one of those custom resources. 3. The same users are not authorized to read another custom resource in the same API group. | ||||
| CVE-2022-3294 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 2 Kubernetes, Openshift | 2025-03-07 | 6.6 Medium |
| Users may have access to secure endpoints in the control plane network. Kubernetes clusters are only affected if an untrusted user can modify Node objects and send proxy requests to them. Kubernetes supports node proxying, which allows clients of kube-apiserver to access endpoints of a Kubelet to establish connections to Pods, retrieve container logs, and more. While Kubernetes already validates the proxying address for Nodes, a bug in kube-apiserver made it possible to bypass this validation. Bypassing this validation could allow authenticated requests destined for Nodes to to the API server's private network. | ||||
| CVE-2023-3676 | 3 Kubernetes, Microsoft, Redhat | 3 Kubernetes, Windows, Openshift | 2025-02-27 | 8.8 High |
| A security issue was discovered in Kubernetes where a user that can create pods on Windows nodes may be able to escalate to admin privileges on those nodes. Kubernetes clusters are only affected if they include Windows nodes. | ||||
| CVE-2023-3955 | 3 Kubernetes, Microsoft, Redhat | 4 Kubelet, Kubernetes, Windows and 1 more | 2025-02-13 | 8.8 High |
| A security issue was discovered in Kubernetes where a user that can create pods on Windows nodes may be able to escalate to admin privileges on those nodes. Kubernetes clusters are only affected if they include Windows nodes. | ||||
| CVE-2023-2728 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 3 Kubernetes, Openshift, Openshift Ironic | 2025-02-13 | 6.5 Medium |
| Users may be able to launch containers that bypass the mountable secrets policy enforced by the ServiceAccount admission plugin when using ephemeral containers. The policy ensures pods running with a service account may only reference secrets specified in the service account’s secrets field. Kubernetes clusters are only affected if the ServiceAccount admission plugin and the `kubernetes.io/enforce-mountable-secrets` annotation are used together with ephemeral containers. | ||||
| CVE-2023-2727 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 3 Kubernetes, Openshift, Openshift Ironic | 2025-02-13 | 6.5 Medium |
| Users may be able to launch containers using images that are restricted by ImagePolicyWebhook when using ephemeral containers. Kubernetes clusters are only affected if the ImagePolicyWebhook admission plugin is used together with ephemeral containers. | ||||
| CVE-2023-2431 | 3 Fedoraproject, Kubernetes, Redhat | 3 Fedora, Kubernetes, Openshift | 2025-02-13 | 3.4 Low |
| A security issue was discovered in Kubelet that allows pods to bypass the seccomp profile enforcement. Pods that use localhost type for seccomp profile but specify an empty profile field, are affected by this issue. In this scenario, this vulnerability allows the pod to run in unconfined (seccomp disabled) mode. This bug affects Kubelet. | ||||
| CVE-2021-25749 | 2 Kubernetes, Redhat | 2 Kubernetes, Openshift | 2025-01-16 | 7.8 High |
| Windows workloads can run as ContainerAdministrator even when those workloads set the runAsNonRoot option to true. | ||||
| CVE-2023-5528 | 4 Fedoraproject, Kubernetes, Microsoft and 1 more | 4 Fedora, Kubernetes, Windows and 1 more | 2025-01-03 | 7.2 High |
| A security issue was discovered in Kubernetes where a user that can create pods and persistent volumes on Windows nodes may be able to escalate to admin privileges on those nodes. Kubernetes clusters are only affected if they are using an in-tree storage plugin for Windows nodes. | ||||
| CVE-2021-25743 | 1 Kubernetes | 1 Kubernetes | 2024-11-21 | 3 Low |
| kubectl does not neutralize escape, meta or control sequences contained in the raw data it outputs to a terminal. This includes but is not limited to the unstructured string fields in objects such as Events. | ||||