VulnerabilityPublished 2 May 2024Updated 12 Oct 2026

CVE-2024-33396: karmada · Improper Access Control

Affects karmadaSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.4 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.4High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% 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:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubkarmada-io/karmada`pkg:github/karmada-io/karmada`Other threats	Affected <=1.9.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-33396, organizations should implement strict access controls to limit local user privileges on systems running karmada. Restrict access to trusted administrators and use role-based access control (RBAC) to minimize the number of users with local execution rights. Monitor and audit local command executions for suspicious or unauthorized activity targeting the token component. Employ host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to detect anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Until an official patch is released, consider isolating the karmada management nodes from untrusted users and networks to reduce the attack surface. Review and harden the configuration of the token management component to prevent unauthorized command injection. Additionally, maintain up-to-date backups and have incident response plans ready to respond to potential compromises. Stay informed on vendor advisories for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available.

Description

An issue in karmada-io karmada v1.9.0 and before allows a local attacker to execute arbitrary code via a crafted command to get the token component. NOTE: Then maintainer states that the behavior is intended design and notes that the researcher advisory does not provide evidence of arbitrary code execution.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-33396 is significant for organizations using karmada for Kubernetes multi-cluster orchestration. Successful exploitation allows local attackers to execute arbitrary code, leading to full compromise of confidentiality and integrity of the system. Attackers could gain access to sensitive tokens used for authentication and authorization, potentially enabling lateral movement and further escalation within the infrastructure. This could result in unauthorized control over cluster management operations, data leakage, and manipulation of Kubernetes clusters. Although availability is not directly affected, the integrity and confidentiality breaches can disrupt operations and trust in the cluster management platform. Organizations with multiple users having local access or weak access controls are at higher risk. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently limits immediate widespread impact, but the vulnerability's characteristics make it a critical concern for internal threat actors or attackers who have gained initial footholds.

Summary

CVE-2024-33396 is a vulnerability in karmada-io karmada, an open-source Kubernetes multi-cluster management system, affecting version 1.9.0 and earlier. The flaw allows a local attacker with limited privileges to execute arbitrary code by sending a specially crafted command to the token component of the system. This vulnerability arises due to improper access control (CWE-284), enabling privilege escalation and unauthorized code execution. The attack vector is local (AV:L), requiring the attacker to have some level of access to the host system but no user interaction is needed (UI:N). The vulnerability has low attack complexity (AC:L) and requires low privileges (PR:L), making it relatively easy to exploit once local access is obtained. The scope is changed (S:C), meaning the vulnerability affects resources beyond the initially compromised component, impacting confidentiality and integrity at a high level (C:H/I:H) but not availability (A:N). No patches or fixes are currently linked, and no known exploits have been reported in the wild as of the publication date. The vulnerability poses a significant risk to environments running karmada, especially where local user access is not tightly controlled. Attackers exploiting this flaw could gain unauthorized access to sensitive tokens and execute arbitrary code, potentially compromising the entire cluster management infrastructure.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
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)
Authorization (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)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 04:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats