CVE-2024-9042VulnerabilityPublished 16 Jun 2025Updated 25 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift for Windows Containers 10.16.2 product release

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 10.16.2 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

Medium

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

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 72% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 10.16.2

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 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 2026-10-25.

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 10.16.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=10.16.0 <10.16.2 Red Hat OpenShift Windows Machine Config Operator OpenShift Windows Machine Config Operator 10.16 amd64 registry.redhat.io/openshift4-wincw/windows-machine-config-operator-bundle@sha256:ba052e0c411a5a43fe52eba3156701f8e6d1d11b987a9de617280f056bc804c4_amd64	Fixed in 10.16.2

AI-suggested

Users should monitor cluster audit logs for suspicious queries to the node '/logs' endpoint to detect potential exploitation attempts. Red Hat recommends upgrading to a fixed version once available. For Windows Machine Config Operator upgrades, refer to the official Red Hat documentation. Customers with a Red Hat Technical Account Manager (TAM) can seek direct guidance. If you cannot patch yet, restricting access to the node logs endpoint and limiting permissions may reduce risk.

Description

Red Hat OpenShift for Windows Containers allows you to deploy Windows container workloads running on Windows Server containers.

Impact

An attacker with access to query the '/logs' endpoint on Windows worker nodes can execute arbitrary OS commands with the privileges of the node process. This can lead to unauthorized code execution, data read or modification, and potential disruption of the node. The vulnerability compromises confidentiality and integrity but does not impact availability directly. Since commands execute as the node, malicious actions may appear to originate from legitimate processes.

Summary

CVE-2024-9042 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) affecting Kubernetes Windows nodes in Red Hat OpenShift for Windows Containers versions >=10.16.0 and <10.16.2. The flaw allows an attacker with the ability to query the node's '/logs' endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on the host. This can result in unauthorized code execution, data modification, or denial of service. The vulnerability is tracked under Red Hat advisory RHSA-2025:9136. Detection is possible via audit logs monitoring for suspicious node 'logs' queries.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command 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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Aug 2026, 18:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78, CWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats