CVE-2024-1725VulnerabilityPublished 7 Mar 2024Updated 14 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-1725: Trust Boundary Violation

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% 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:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

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

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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 7 Mar 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-2024-1725, organizations should first apply any available patches or updates from Red Hat or the OpenShift Virtualization maintainers as soon as they are released. In the absence of patches, administrators should restrict the ability to create Persistent Volumes to only highly trusted users or service accounts, minimizing the number of principals that can exploit this vulnerability. Implement strict RBAC policies to enforce least privilege, ensuring that only necessary roles have permissions to create or modify Persistent Volumes. Monitoring and alerting on Persistent Volume creation events, especially those with names matching worker nodes, can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Additionally, consider isolating critical workloads and nodes to reduce the blast radius if a compromise occurs. Regularly audit cluster configurations and access logs for suspicious activity. Finally, educate administrators and developers about the risks of privilege misuse in the cluster environment to enhance overall security posture.

Description

A flaw was found in the kubevirt-csi component of OpenShift Virtualization's Hosted Control Plane (HCP). This issue could allow an authenticated attacker to gain access to the root HCP worker node's volume by creating a custom Persistent Volume that matches the name of a worker node.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-1725 is unauthorized access to the root volume of HCP worker nodes, which can lead to exposure of sensitive data, including configuration files, credentials, or other critical information stored on the node. This breach of confidentiality could facilitate further attacks, such as privilege escalation or lateral movement within the cluster. Since the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability, it does not directly allow modification or disruption of services, but the data exposure alone can have severe consequences. Organizations relying on OpenShift Virtualization for critical workloads, especially those in regulated industries or with sensitive data, face increased risk of data leakage and potential compliance violations. The requirement for authenticated access limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, particularly in environments where user privileges are not tightly controlled or where compromised credentials exist. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests the vulnerability is not yet actively exploited, but the ease of exploitation and impact warrant prompt attention.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…