GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH

Workarounds

There are no workarounds available.

Acknowledgements

The Cilium community has worked together with members of Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to Sander Mathijssen for not only highlighting the issue but also proposing a resolution.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on Slack.

As usual, if you think you found a related vulnerability, we strongly encourage you to report security vulnerabilities to our private security mailing list: [email protected] - first, before disclosing them in any public forums. This is a private mailing list where only members of the Cilium internal security team are subscribed to, and is treated as top priority.

If a user has Network Policies with namespace selectors selecting labels of namespaces, or (clusterwide) Cilium Network Policies matching on namespace labels, then it is possible for an attacker with Kubernetes pod deploy rights (either directly or indirectly via higher-level APIs such as Deployment, Daemonset etc) to craft additional pod labels such that the pod is selected by another policy that exists rather than the expected policy.

GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH has a CVSS score of 4.3 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (1.10.14, 1.11.8, 1.12.1); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

The problem has been fixed and is available on versions >=1.10.14, >=1.11.8, >=1.12.1

1. What is GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH? GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH is a medium-severity security vulnerability in github.com/cilium/cilium (go), affecting versions <= 1.10.13. It is fixed in 1.10.14, 1.11.8, 1.12.1.
2. How severe is GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH? GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH has a CVSS score of 4.3 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
3. Which versions of github.com/cilium/cilium are affected by GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH? github.com/cilium/cilium (go) versions <= 1.10.13 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH? Yes. GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH is fixed in 1.10.14, 1.11.8, 1.12.1. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
6. What actually determines whether GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
7. How do I fix GHSA-PFHR-PCCP-HWMH?
   • Upgrade github.com/cilium/cilium to 1.10.14 or later
   • Upgrade github.com/cilium/cilium to 1.11.8 or later
   • Upgrade github.com/cilium/cilium to 1.12.1 or later