VulnerabilityPublished 2 Aug 2024Updated 14 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-3056: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 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 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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: 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 2 Aug 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 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 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-2024-3056, organizations should: 1) Avoid configuring containers to share IPC namespaces unless absolutely necessary; 2) Limit or disable automatic container restart policies such as --restart=always for untrusted or potentially vulnerable containers; 3) Monitor IPC resource usage within /dev/shm and IPC namespaces to detect abnormal growth indicative of exploitation attempts; 4) Implement resource quotas and limits on IPC objects and memory usage at the container and cgroup level to prevent resource exhaustion; 5) Regularly update Podman to versions where this vulnerability is patched once available; 6) Consider isolating critical workloads in separate IPC namespaces to prevent cross-container resource exhaustion; 7) Employ runtime security tools to detect anomalous container behavior related to IPC resource creation; 8) Review container lifecycle management processes to ensure proper cleanup of IPC resources when containers stop; 9) Restrict container creation and management privileges to trusted users to reduce attack surface; 10) Conduct security audits and penetration testing focusing on IPC namespace and shared memory usage in container environments.

Description

A flaw was found in Podman. This issue may allow an attacker to create a specially crafted container that, when configured to share the same IPC with at least one other container, can create a large number of IPC resources in /dev/shm. The malicious container will continue to exhaust resources until it is out-of-memory (OOM) killed. While the malicious container's cgroup will be removed, the IPC resources it created are not. Those resources are tied to the IPC namespace that will not be removed until all containers using it are stopped, and one non-malicious container is holding the namespace open. The malicious container is restarted, either automatically or by attacker control, repeating the process and increasing the amount of memory consumed. With a container configured to restart always, such as `podman run --restart=always`, this can result in a memory-based denial of service of the system.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-3056 is a denial of service condition caused by memory exhaustion on systems running vulnerable Podman versions. This can disrupt containerized workloads and potentially affect the host system's stability and availability. Organizations relying on Podman for container orchestration, especially those using IPC namespace sharing and automatic container restart policies, face increased risk of service outages. The persistence of IPC resources despite container termination can lead to gradual degradation of system resources, complicating detection and remediation. This vulnerability could be exploited by low-privileged attackers with network access and the ability to run containers, potentially within multi-tenant environments or CI/CD pipelines, leading to operational disruptions. Although confidentiality and integrity impacts are not evident, the availability impact is significant, potentially affecting critical infrastructure and services.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…