Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
OpenKruise had a Kubernetes control weakness where authorized users could make node-level probe traffic target arbitrary hosts. This could let a low-privileged cluster user map internal services from a node’s network position. The issue is patched in OpenKruise 1.8.3 and 1.7.5. No source provided indicates active exploitation.
Executive priority
Prioritize patching for clusters using OpenKruise in shared or less-trusted environments. This is not evidenced as actively exploited, but it can expose internal network information from Kubernetes nodes if RBAC is too permissive.
Technical view
CVE-2026-24005 is an SSRF issue in OpenKruise PodProbeMarker validation before 1.8.3 and 1.7.5. TCPSocket and HTTPGet probe Host values were not restricted. Because kruise-daemon runs with hostNetwork=true, probes execute from the node network namespace, enabling arbitrary host probing and response feedback through NodePodProbe status.
Likely exposure
Exposure is limited to Kubernetes clusters running affected OpenKruise versions where a user or workload identity can create PodProbeMarker resources. Risk is higher in multi-tenant clusters or environments with broad custom-resource RBAC permissions.
Exploitation context
The advisory describes attacker requirements as PodProbeMarker creation permission. The impact is SSRF and port scanning from the node network namespace with feedback through status messages. KEV is false and the provided sources do not report active exploitation.
Researcher notes
The source bundle’s CVSS vector reports no confidentiality, integrity, or availability impact despite describing SSRF and port scanning. Treat severity as context-dependent. Key validation points are affected OpenKruise version, PodProbeMarker RBAC reachability, and whether existing probe Host values target unexpected internal assets.
Mitigation direction
- Upgrade OpenKruise 1.8.x deployments to 1.8.3 or later.
- Upgrade OpenKruise 1.7.x deployments to 1.7.5 or later.
- Restrict RBAC permissions to create or modify PodProbeMarker resources.
- Review vendor advisory and release notes before rollout.
- Audit existing PodProbeMarker resources for unexpected Host values.
Validation and detection
- Inventory OpenKruise versions across all Kubernetes clusters.
- Identify subjects with PodProbeMarker create or update permissions.
- Review existing PodProbeMarker HTTPGet and TCPSocket Host fields.
- Confirm upgraded clusters run patched OpenKruise versions.
- Check NodePodProbe status history for unusual probing patterns.
Public sources used
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-918: Information exposure and cloud metadata lookup
Information exposure and SSRF weaknesses can make discovery, cloud metadata, and credential material review relevant. 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 lookupCloud metadata behavior lookup
The CVE wording references SSRF or metadata access, so cloud discovery and credential material review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program 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-2026-24005 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
- None
- CVSS
- 0 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:N
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:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:N2.80Primary CVE scoreVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
0NoneVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:N
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://github.com/openkruise/kruise/security/advisories/GHSA-9fj4-3849-rv9gCVE reference · x_refsource_CONFIRM
- https://github.com/openkruise/kruise/commit/94364b76adf3e8a1749a31afe809a163bed29613CVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
- https://github.com/openkruise/kruise/releases/tag/v1.7.5CVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
- https://github.com/openkruise/kruise/releases/tag/v1.8.3CVE 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.
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.