Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
This issue affects older HashiCorp Nomad clients where Docker file sandbox protections may not hold as intended. The risk is mainly to organizations using affected Nomad versions with Docker workloads, especially where the feature was not disabled or volume mounts are used.
Executive priority
Treat this as a targeted platform-hardening issue, not a confirmed emergency. Prioritize remediation where Nomad schedules Docker workloads for sensitive systems or multi-tenant environments.
Technical view
HashiCorp Nomad and Nomad Enterprise 0.9.0 through 0.12.7 had a Docker client file sandbox weakness. Public sources state the sandbox feature could be subverted when not explicitly disabled or when using a volume mount type. Fixes are listed in 0.12.8, 0.11.7, and 0.10.8.
Likely exposure
Exposure is likely limited to Nomad or Nomad Enterprise deployments running versions 0.9.0 through 0.12.7 with Docker client workloads and relevant sandbox or volume-mount configurations.
Exploitation context
The provided sources do not report active exploitation, and the CVE is not marked as CISA KEV. Public details are sparse, so exploitation likelihood cannot be judged confidently from this bundle alone.
Researcher notes
Evidence confirms affected version ranges and fixed releases, but does not provide CVSS, CWE, detailed impact, or exploit status. Analysis should remain focused on Nomad Docker client sandbox behavior and volume-mount exposure.
Mitigation direction
- Upgrade Nomad or Nomad Enterprise to 0.12.8, 0.11.7, 0.10.8, or later.
- Inventory Nomad clients running affected 0.9.0 through 0.12.7 releases.
- Review Docker workload use of volume mounts on affected Nomad clients.
- If upgrade is delayed, check HashiCorp guidance for supported configuration workarounds.
Validation and detection
- Confirm all Nomad clients report a fixed version or later.
- Identify jobs using Docker workloads on affected client versions.
- Review job specifications for volume mount usage.
- Check operational records for unexpected sandbox or file-access behavior.
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.
Container 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-2020-28348 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
- Unknown
- CVSS
- Not scored
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
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 and timeline data
No CVSS vectors or timeline events were available in the normalized CVE source material.
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/issues/9303CVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
- https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#0128-november-10-2020CVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
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.