VulnerabilityPublished 15 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-95837: containerd CRI plugin · Checkpoint restore bypasses destination security context

Affects github.com/containerd/containerd/v2Source GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High : upgrade to 2.2.7 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.7, 2.3.4

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade github.com/containerd/containerd/v2 to 2.2.7; github.com/containerd/containerd/v2 to 2.3.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/containerd/containerd/v2	Affected >=2.1.0 <2.2.7	Fixed in 2.2.7
Gogithub.com/containerd/containerd/v2	Affected >=2.3.0 <2.3.4	Fixed in 2.3.4

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

### Impact A vulnerability in containerd's CRI implementation allows a container restored from an untrusted checkpoint via the `CreateContainer` API to bypass the destination security context and execute with elevated privileges. When restoring a container from a checkpoint archive or annotated OCI image, CRIU restores process credentials, Linux capabilities, `no_new_privs`, and seccomp state directly from checkpoint data rather than enforcing the destination CRI `ContainerConfig`. An attacker who can run a container with a crafted checkpoint image can execute processes as root with full capabilities and no enforced seccomp filters despite restrictive security policies requested by the orchestrator. Additionally, containerd's CRI status reporting reflects the requested configuration rather than the actual restored process state, masking the privilege discrepancy from orchestrators. This issue affects Linux systems running containerd with CRI checkpoint restore enabled; users not utilizing CRI checkpoint restore are not affected. ### Patches This bug has been addressed in containerd 2.2.7 and 2.3.4 by disabling checkpoint restore via `CreateContainer` by default. The feature has been removed entirely in containerd 2.4.0. Users should update to these versions to resolve the issue. Running containers that were restored from untrusted checkpoints should be stopped, deleted, and recreated. Users who rely on restore via the `CreateContainer` API can re-enable the feature by setting the new `enable_experimental_restore_via_create` configuration option. However, enabling restore via `CreateContainer` leaves this vulnerability present, as containerd cannot enforce destination security policy during CRIU process restoration. ### Workarounds On unpatched versions, containerd does not provide a configuration option to disable checkpoint restore via `CreateContainer`. Deployments should restrict container creation permissions to trusted users, validate container image registries, or use admission controllers to reject images containing checkpoint data. ### References * [CRIU image security](https://checkpoint-restore.github.io/criu/security/image-security.html) ### Credits The containerd project would like to thank @l2yyd5 and @berkpolatCE for responsibly disclosing this issue in accordance with the [containerd security policy](https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/main/SECURITY.md). ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in [containerd](https://github.com/containerd/containerd/issues/new/choose) * Email us at [security@containerd.io](mailto:security@containerd.io) To report a security issue in containerd: * [Report a new vulnerability](https://github.com/containerd/containerd/security/advisories/new) * Email us at [security@containerd.io](mailto:security@containerd.io)

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats