CVE-2024-0793VulnerabilityPublished 17 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-0793: Improper Input Validation

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 17 Nov 2024
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 2026-10-26.

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 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

To mitigate CVE-2024-0793, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Validate all HPA configuration YAML files before applying them to ensure the .spec.behavior.scaleUp block is present and correctly defined, using schema validation tools or admission controllers. 2) Employ Kubernetes admission webhooks to enforce configuration policies that prevent incomplete or malformed HPA specs from being accepted. 3) Monitor kube-controller-manager pod health and logs for signs of restart churn or instability to detect exploitation attempts early. 4) Restrict access to the Kubernetes API server to trusted users with appropriate privileges to reduce the risk of malicious or accidental application of vulnerable configurations. 5) Stay current with vendor advisories and apply patches or updates to kube-controller-manager as soon as they are released. 6) Consider implementing redundancy and failover mechanisms for control plane components to minimize downtime in case of pod restarts. 7) Use role-based access control (RBAC) to limit who can create or modify HPA resources, reducing the attack surface. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on configuration validation, access control, and proactive monitoring specific to this vulnerability.

Description

A flaw was found in kube-controller-manager. This issue occurs when the initial application of a HPA config YAML lacking a .spec.behavior.scaleUp block causes a denial of service due to KCM pods going into restart churn.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-0793 is a denial of service condition on the kube-controller-manager pods, which are essential for managing Kubernetes cluster control loops, including scaling and lifecycle management of pods. Disruption of KCM availability can lead to degraded cluster functionality, delayed or failed scaling operations, and potential cascading effects on workloads relying on autoscaling. For organizations relying heavily on Kubernetes for production workloads, this can translate into downtime, reduced reliability, and operational challenges. Since the vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or integrity, data breaches or unauthorized modifications are not a direct concern. However, the loss of availability in critical infrastructure components can affect service delivery, especially in cloud-native environments, DevOps pipelines, and microservices architectures. The ease of exploitation and network accessibility increase the risk profile, particularly for multi-tenant or exposed Kubernetes clusters. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests limited current exploitation but does not preclude future attacks once exploit code becomes available.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…