VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48710: kro · Confused Deputy

Affects kroSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Jun 2025
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
GitHubkro-run/kro`pkg:github/kro-run/kro`Other threats	Affected =0.1.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Restrict permissions strictly: Limit the ability to create or modify ResourceGraphDefinition resources to only highly trusted administrators. Implement least privilege principles rigorously.
Monitor and audit: Continuously monitor Kubernetes audit logs for creation or modification of ResourceGraphDefinition resources and unexpected container image deployments.
Use admission controllers: Deploy Kubernetes admission controllers or policy engines (e.g., OPA Gatekeeper) to validate and restrict container images that can be used in ResourceGraphDefinition resources, blocking untrusted or unsigned images.
Upgrade kro: As soon as a patched version (≥0.2.1) is available, apply the update promptly to remediate the vulnerability.
Network segmentation: Isolate Kubernetes cluster nodes and restrict network access to minimize the impact of potential node compromise.
Implement runtime security: Use container runtime security tools to detect and prevent anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation.
Incident response readiness: Prepare for potential exploitation by having incident response plans tailored to Kubernetes environments, including node isolation and forensic capabilities.

Description

kro (Kube Resource Orchestrator) 0.1.0 before 0.2.1 allows users (with permission to create or modify ResourceGraphDefinition resources) to supply arbitrary container images. This can lead to a confused-deputy scenario where kro's controllers deploy and run attacker-controlled images, resulting in unauthenticated remote code execution on cluster nodes.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those leveraging Kubernetes orchestration platforms like kro, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized code execution on critical infrastructure nodes. Compromise of cluster nodes can lead to manipulation or disruption of containerized applications, data breaches, and loss of integrity in business-critical services. Given the increasing adoption of Kubernetes in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and manufacturing across Europe, exploitation could disrupt operations and violate compliance requirements like GDPR if data integrity or availability is impacted indirectly. The requirement for high privileges to exploit somewhat limits the threat to insiders or compromised accounts, but insider threats or privilege escalation attacks could leverage this vulnerability to gain full control over cluster nodes. The lack of user interaction needed means automated exploitation is possible once privileges are obtained. The vulnerability could also be leveraged in supply chain attacks if attackers compromise users with the required permissions. Overall, the impact is moderate but with potential for significant operational disruption in sensitive environments.

CWE-441Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor.
Architecture and Design
Enforce the use of strong mutual authentication mechanism between the two parties.
Architecture and Design
Whenever a product is an intermediary or proxy for transactions between two other components, the proxy core should not drop the identity of the initiator of the transaction. The immutability of the identity of the initiator must be maintained and should be forwarded all the way to the target.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Routing Detour Attacks (opens in a new tab)
Transparent Proxy Abuse (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 5 Jul 2025, 18:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-441

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats