CVE-2025-13888VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jan 2026Updated 25 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift GitOps v1.18.3 security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-13888· Critical 9.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 52% 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:H/I:H/A:H

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Dec 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 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
GitHubredhat-developer/gitops-operator`pkg:github/redhat-developer/gitops-operator`Other threats	Affected =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

Red Hat has released OpenShift GitOps version 1.18.3 which includes fixes for CVE-2025-13888 and other related vulnerabilities. Users should apply this update promptly after ensuring all prior relevant errata are applied. The vendor advisory confirms the availability of an official fix. No additional mitigations are specified beyond applying the update. Since the vulnerability requires authenticated namespace admin privileges, restricting such privileges to trusted users also reduces risk.

Description

An update is now available for Red Hat OpenShift GitOps. Bug Fix(es) and Enhancement(s): * GITOPS-8239 (CVE-2025-47913 openshift-gitops-1/gitops-rhel8: golang.org/x/crypto/ssh/agent: SSH client panic due to unexpected SSH_AGENT_SUCCESS [gitops-1.18]) * GITOPS-8079 (CVE-2025-58183 openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel8: Unbounded allocation when parsing GNU sparse map [gitops-1.18]) * GITOPS-8082 (CVE-2025-58183 openshift-gitops-1/dex-rhel8: Unbounded allocation when parsing GNU sparse map [gitops-1.18]) * GITOPS-8522 (CVE-2025-68156 openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel8: Expr: Denial of Service via uncontrolled recursion in expression evaluation [gitops-1.18]) * GITOPS-8523 (CVE-2025-68156 openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel9: Expr: Denial of Service via uncontrolled recursion in expression evaluation [gitops-1.18]) * GITOPS-7849 (Cherry pick Repo Type Fix to Argo CD 3.1 stream) * GITOPS-7992 (openshift-gitops-operator-metrics-monitor ServiceMonitor is attempting to use a bearerTokenFile configuration in its endpoints definition) * GITOPS-8225 (RC 1.19.0-2 : haproxy replica remains 1 with HA upgrade) * GITOPS-8249 (Prevent argoCD from automatically refreshing to gitops repository ) * GITOPS-8411 (CVE-2025-55190 still blocking due to github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2@v2.14.11 in gitops-rhel8:v1.18.1) * GITOPS-8535 (Show All Namespaces or Current Namespace Only option) * GITOPS-8591 (Reciving TargetDown after upgrading GitOps )

Impact

An authenticated namespace administrator can exploit CVE-2025-13888 to escalate privileges across namespaces, including privileged namespaces, enabling creation of privileged workloads on master nodes and effectively gaining root access to the entire cluster. This represents a significant risk of full cluster compromise. Other vulnerabilities may lead to denial of service or unexpected client crashes, impacting availability and stability of the GitOps service. The attack surface is limited to authorized internal users with namespace admin rights, not external unauthenticated attackers.

Summary

Red Hat OpenShift GitOps versions from 1.18.0 up to but not including 1.18.3 are affected by multiple security vulnerabilities. The most significant is CVE-2025-13888, where namespace administrators can create ArgoCD Custom Resources that grant them elevated permissions in other namespaces, including privileged ones. This can be exploited to create privileged workloads running on master nodes, effectively granting root access to the entire cluster. Additional vulnerabilities addressed include denial of service via uncontrolled recursion in expression evaluation (CVE-2025-68156), unbounded memory allocation when parsing GNU sparse maps (CVE-2025-58183), and SSH client panic due to unexpected SSH_AGENT_SUCCESS (CVE-2025-47913). Red Hat has released OpenShift GitOps v1.18.3 containing fixes for these issues. The vulnerability requires authenticated namespace admin privileges, reducing exposure to internal threat actors. The advisory includes multiple CVEs and bug fixes related to privilege escalation, denial of service, and memory allocation errors.

CWE-266Incorrect Privilege Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
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)
Secure Design Principles (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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-522Insufficiently Protected Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
Architecture and Design
Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
Architecture and Design
Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
Implementation
Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Key Theft (opens in a new tab)
Password Recovery Exploitation (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Modify Existing Service (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-1050Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product has a loop body or loop condition that contains a control element that directly or indirectly consumes platform resources, e.g. messaging, sessions, locks, or file descriptors.
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).
CWE-241Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular element is not the expected type, e.g. it expects a digit (0-9) but is provided with a letter (A-Z).
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.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Passing Local Filenames to Functions That Expect a URL (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 14 Aug 2026, 21:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-266, CWE-522, CWE-770 +2

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats