GHSA-9m5p-c77c-f9j7 BIT-cilium-2025-23028 BIT-cilium-operator-2025-23028 BIT-hubble-relay-2025-23028 CVE-2025-23028 GO-2025-3415
DoS in Cilium agent DNS proxy from crafted DNS responses
- Severity
- 5.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.45%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.33% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
1.14.18- Upgrade github.com/cilium/cilium to this version or later
Description
Impact
In a Kubernetes cluster where Cilium is configured to proxy DNS traffic, an attacker can crash Cilium agents by sending a crafted DNS response to workloads from outside the cluster.
For traffic that is allowed but without using DNS-based policy, the dataplane will continue to pass traffic as configured at the time of the DoS. For workloads that have DNS-based policy configured, existing connections may continue to operate, and new connections made without relying on DNS resolution may continue to be established, but new connections which rely on DNS resolution may be disrupted. Any configuration changes that affect the impacted agent may not be applied until the agent is able to restart.
Patches
This issue affects:
- Cilium v1.14 between v1.14.0 and v1.14.17 inclusive
- Cilium v1.15 between v1.15.0 and v1.15.11 inclusive
- Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.4 inclusive
This issue is fixed in:
- Cilium v1.14.18
- Cilium v1.15.12
- Cilium v1.16.5
Workarounds
There are no known workarounds to this issue.
Acknowledgements
The Cilium community has worked together with members of Isovalent and the Cisco Advanced Security Initiatives Group (ASIG) to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @kokelley-cisco for reporting this issue and @bimmlerd for the fix.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on Slack.
If you think you have found a vulnerability affecting Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our security mailing list at security@cilium.io. This is a private mailing list for the Cilium security team, and your report will be treated as top priority.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/cilium/cilium | >= 1.14.0, < 1.14.18 |
1.14.18 |
| github.com/cilium/cilium | >= 1.15.0, < 1.15.12 |
1.15.12 |
| github.com/cilium/cilium | >= 1.16.0, < 1.16.5 |
1.16.5 |
| github.com/cilium/cilium | >= 1.14.0, < 1.14.18>= 1.15.0, < 1.15.12>= 1.16.0, < 1.16.5 |
1.14.181.15.121.16.5 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
github.com/cilium/cilium Go → 1.14.18
- go
go get github.com/cilium/cilium@v1.14.18 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
- Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
- Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-fm8w-2m5w-9j7r Cilium may unexpectedly allow ingress traffic from the local namespace when a Kubernetes NetworkPolicy is configured with an ipBlock match | Medium | Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium |
| GHSA-w7c2-w76w-5hmj Cilium: Namespaced HTTPRoutes can redirect traffic to other namespaces | High | Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium |
| GHSA-q6h5-q3q6-f87x CiliumLocalRedirectPolicy addressMatcher allows cross-namespace service traffic hijacking and can break service translation | Medium | Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium |
| GHSA-3fcv-jvfp-m4q9 Cilium vulnerable to sensitive information disclosure and cluster disruption via local Envoy admin socket access | High | Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium |
| GHSA-gj49-89wh-h4gj Cillium exposes sensitive information included in the cilium-bugtool debug archive | Medium | Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium |
| GHSA-hxv8-4j4r-cqgv Cilium L7 proxy may bypass Kubernetes NetworkPolicy for same-node traffic | Medium | Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium |
| GHSA-5r23-prx4-mqg3 Cilium may not enforce host firewall policies when Native Routing, WireGuard and Node Encryption are enabled | Medium | Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium |
| GHSA-38pp-6gcp-rqvm Cilium with misconfigured toGroups in policies can lead to unrestricted egress traffic | Medium | Also affects github.com/cilium/cilium |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor