CVE-2025-21613VulnerabilityPublished 26 Feb 2025Updated 13 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Errata Advisory for Red Hat OpenShift GitOps v1.15.1 security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 10.0.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 1.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 69% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 10.0.0

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Feb 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 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

Upgrade Red Hat to 10.0.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=9.0.0 <10.0.0 Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift GitOps Red Hat OpenShift GitOps 1.15 amd64 Red Hat Enterprise Linux Red Hat Enterprise Linux AppStream (v. 9) src grafana-0:10.2.6-9.el9_5.src	Fixed in 10.0.0

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released official security updates for OpenShift GitOps v1.15.1 and Grafana on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 to address these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the provided errata updates as soon as possible, ensuring all previously released relevant errata are also applied. Detailed update instructions are available in the Red Hat advisory at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional vendor mitigation guidance indicates that patching is the primary remediation.

Description

Errata Advisory for Red Hat OpenShift GitOps v1.15.1. Security Fix(es): * openshift-gitops-argocd-rhel9-container: go-git clients vulnerable to DoS via maliciously crafted Git server replies [gitops-1.15](CVE-2025-21614) * openshift-gitops-argocd-container: go-git clients vulnerable to DoS via maliciously crafted Git server replies [gitops-1.15](CVE-2025-21614) * openshift-gitops-container: go-git clients vulnerable to DoS via maliciously crafted Git server replies [gitops-1.15](CVE-2025-21614) * openshift-gitops-argocd-rhel9-container: Argo CD does not scrub secret values from patch errors [gitops-1.15](CVE-2025-23216) * openshift-gitops-container: Argo CD does not scrub secret values from patch errors [gitops-1.15](CVE-2025-23216) * openshift-gitops-operator-bundle-container: Argo CD does not scrub secret values from patch errors [gitops-1.15](CVE-2025-23216) * openshift-gitops-operator-container: Argo CD does not scrub secret values from patch errors [gitops-1.15](CVE-2025-23216) For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Impact

Successful exploitation of CVE-2025-21614 could allow an attacker controlling a malicious Git server to cause denial-of-service conditions in go-git clients used by OpenShift GitOps components. CVE-2025-23216 could lead to exposure of secret values in patch error messages within Argo CD, potentially leaking sensitive information. The Grafana vulnerability (CVE-2025-30204) could allow excessive memory allocation, potentially leading to denial-of-service or resource exhaustion. These vulnerabilities impact the confidentiality and availability of affected systems.

Summary

The advisory covers security fixes for Red Hat OpenShift GitOps v1.15.1, specifically addressing a denial-of-service vulnerability in go-git clients (CVE-2025-21614) triggered by malicious Git server replies, and an information disclosure issue where Argo CD does not scrub secret values from patch errors (CVE-2025-23216). The update affects multiple container images and operator bundles across different architectures (x86_64, ppc64le, s390x, aarch64). The advisory also references a separate important security update for Grafana on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, fixing a vulnerability (CVE-2025-30204) that allows excessive memory allocation during JWT header parsing. Red Hat provides official errata with updated packages and instructions for applying these updates.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
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
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-209Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
Implementation
Handle exceptions internally and do not display errors containing potentially sensitive information to a user.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Use naming conventions and strong types to make it easier to spot when sensitive data is being used. When creating structures, objects, or other complex entities, separate the sensitive and non-sensitive data as much as possible.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fuzzing for application mapping (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Query System for Information (opens in a new tab)
Blind SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-405Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification) (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product does not properly control situations in which an adversary can cause the product to consume or produce excessive resources without requiring the adversary to invest equivalent work or otherwise prove authorization, i.e., the adversary's influence is "asymmetric."
Architecture and Design
An application must make resources available to a client commensurate with the client's access level.
Architecture and Design
An application must, at all times, keep track of allocated resources and meter their usage appropriately.
System Configuration
Consider disabling resource-intensive algorithms on the server side, such as Diffie-Hellman key exchange.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (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 11 Aug 2026, 20:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88, CWE-770, CWE-209 +1

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats