Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
A narrow Kubernetes kubelet bug can cause some containers to restart as root when the workload did not explicitly choose a user. The business risk is unintended privilege inside affected containers, not remote cluster takeover by itself. Workloads enforcing non-root execution are protected from this specific behavior.
Executive priority
Treat this as a targeted hardening and upgrade issue. Prioritize clusters on the two affected kubelet versions, especially where sensitive workloads lack non-root enforcement. It is not presented as actively exploited in the supplied sources.
Technical view
In Kubernetes kubelet v1.13.6 and v1.14.2, pods without explicit runAsUser can attempt uid 0 after container restart or when the image is already present on the node. If mustRunAsNonRoot is true, kubelet refuses to start the container as root.
Likely exposure
Exposure is limited to Kubernetes nodes running kubelet v1.13.6 or v1.14.2 with pods that omit explicit runAsUser and do not enforce mustRunAsNonRoot. The risky condition appears after restart or when images are already pulled to nodes.
Exploitation context
The source bundle does not show CISA KEV listing or active exploitation evidence. Practical impact depends on workload design: a container unexpectedly running as root can increase damage from another flaw or misconfiguration inside that workload.
Researcher notes
The key exposure condition is absence of explicit runAsUser combined with kubelet restart or cached-image behavior. mustRunAsNonRoot changes outcome from unintended root execution to container start refusal. Patch availability is not specified in the provided bundle, so use upstream and vendor guidance.
Mitigation direction
- Identify and remove kubelet v1.13.6 and v1.14.2 from production clusters.
- Set explicit non-root runAsUser values for affected pod specifications.
- Enforce mustRunAsNonRoot: true where workload compatibility allows.
- Check Kubernetes and vendor advisories for corrected releases and supported upgrade paths.
- For NetApp environments, review the cited NetApp advisory for product-specific guidance.
Validation and detection
- Inventory node kubelet versions and flag v1.13.6 or v1.14.2.
- Review pod securityContext fields for missing runAsUser values.
- Confirm mustRunAsNonRoot is set for workloads expected to run non-root.
- Check whether affected images are pre-pulled or containers have recently restarted.
- Verify remediated workloads still start and run under intended non-root users.
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-703: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupContainer behavior lookup
The affected technology mentions containers, so container-specific ATT&CK technique review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2019-11245 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Medium
- CVSS
- 4.9 (3.0)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
CVSS vector scores
1 official scoreWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L1.43.4Primary CVE scoreVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.0 score
4.9MediumVector: CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/78308CVE reference · x_refsource_CONFIRM
- https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190919-0003/CVE reference · x_refsource_CONFIRM
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions
Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.