VulnerabilityPublished 13 Sep 2022Updated 5 Jun 2025

CVE-2022-2989: podman · CWE-842

Affects podmanSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Sep 2022
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

AI-suggested

Given the absence of a fixed version, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Restrict access to containers strictly, ensuring only trusted users and processes can execute code inside containers, minimizing the risk of an attacker gaining the required execution capability. 2) Avoid using supplementary groups for access control within containers until a patch is available, or carefully audit and limit their use to reduce exposure. 3) Employ container runtime security tools that monitor and restrict process execution and privilege escalation attempts inside containers. 4) Use Linux security modules (e.g., SELinux, AppArmor) to enforce strict access controls on container processes and file systems. 5) Isolate sensitive workloads in containers with minimal privileges and consider additional network segmentation to limit lateral movement. 6) Monitor container logs and system calls for unusual activity indicative of exploitation attempts. 7) Stay updated with vendor advisories and apply patches immediately once available. 8) Consider alternative container runtimes temporarily if Podman usage is not critical or if the risk is unacceptable.

Description

An incorrect handling of the supplementary groups in the Podman container engine might lead to the sensitive information disclosure or possible data modification if an attacker has direct access to the affected container where supplementary groups are used to set access permissions and is able to execute a binary code in that container.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2022-2989 can be substantial, especially those heavily invested in containerized environments using Podman. Sensitive data stored or processed inside containers could be exposed or altered by attackers who gain container access, undermining data confidentiality and integrity. This is particularly critical for sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government, where data protection regulations like GDPR impose strict requirements on data security and breach notification. Unauthorized data modification could also disrupt business operations or lead to compliance violations. Since Podman is often used in development pipelines and production workloads, exploitation could lead to lateral movement within internal networks if attackers leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges or access sensitive resources. The lack of a patch means organizations must rely on compensating controls, increasing operational overhead. Additionally, the vulnerability could undermine trust in container security models, potentially delaying container adoption or forcing costly architectural changes.

CWE-842Placement of User into Incorrect Group (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product or the administrator places a user into an incorrect group.
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)
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 18:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-842

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats