VulnerabilityPublished 2 May 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-33394: kubevirt · Code Injection

Affects kubevirtSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 May 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubkubevirt/kubevirt`pkg:github/kubevirt/kubevirt`Other threats	Affected <=1.2.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Restrict local access to hosts running kubevirt to trusted administrators only, minimizing the risk of unprivileged users exploiting the vulnerability. 2. Implement strict access controls and monitoring on systems hosting kubevirt to detect unusual command executions or token component interactions. 3. Use container and VM isolation best practices to limit the impact of potential code execution within kubevirt environments. 4. Regularly audit and review user permissions and local access policies to ensure no unauthorized users can gain local access. 5. Monitor official kubevirt channels for patches or updates addressing CVE-2024-33394 and apply them promptly once available. 6. Consider deploying runtime security tools that can detect and block suspicious command execution patterns related to token handling. 7. Employ network segmentation to isolate critical kubevirt hosts from less secure network zones, reducing attack surface. 8. Educate system administrators about the risks of local code execution vulnerabilities and encourage proactive security hygiene.

Description

An issue in kubevirt kubevirt v1.2.0 and before allows a local attacker to execute arbitrary code via a crafted command to get the token component.

Impact

The vulnerability allows local attackers to execute arbitrary code, which can compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of systems running kubevirt. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data, modification or deletion of critical files, disruption of virtual machine operations, or full system compromise. Organizations relying on kubevirt for virtualization in Kubernetes clusters may face service outages, data breaches, or lateral movement within their infrastructure. Since kubevirt is often used in cloud-native environments, the impact could extend to multi-tenant platforms, affecting multiple customers or services. The medium severity score reflects that while exploitation requires local access, the lack of privilege requirements increases the risk, especially in environments with multiple users or less stringent access controls. The absence of known exploits suggests the vulnerability is not yet actively weaponized, but it remains a significant risk if left unaddressed.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

gist.github.com/HouqiyuA/1b75e23ece7ad98490aec1c887bdf49b (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 04:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats