CVE-2024-45337VulnerabilityPublished 15 Dec 2025Updated 29 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift GitOps v1.18.2 security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-49844

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 09:13 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 3.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 88% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift GitOps Red Hat OpenShift GitOps 1.18 amd64 registry.redhat.io/openshift-gitops-1/argo-rollouts-rhel8@sha256:217cfb3efa9a3514fec28db7c812c723c0d490b2653920f690e89bec64bb8a17_amd64	Fixed in–

Description

An update is now available for Red Hat OpenShift GitOps. Bug Fix(es) and Enhancement(s): * GITOPS-7608 (Redis HA pods are taking longer than expected to come up) * GITOPS-7789 (Version override in ArgoCD CR causes operator to use upstream images) * GITOPS-7798 (Progress Sync Unknown in UI (cherry-pick #24202 for 3.1)) * GITOPS-7844 (GitOpsService controller creates default ArgoCD with v1alpha1 api version) * GITOPS-8019 (CVE-2025-49844 - Vulnerability with Redis) * GITOPS-8033 (openshift-gitops-redis-ha-haproxy deployment fails to rollout with 3 worker nodes) * GITOPS-8067 (1.18.z - Hide Dev Preview Badge in GitOps Operator's Operand tabs) * GITOPS-8142 (CVE-2024-45337 reported by RHACS for OpenShift GitOps Operator v1.18.1 (ArgoCD-based) due to outdated git-lfs binary, dependency update required to remove false positive.) * GITOPS-8152 (ArgoCD CR Reconciliation fails if spec.applicationSet.webhookServer.route.enabled is set to true) Post-Upgrade Action Required: Audit GitOps Operator Roles Following this upgrade, we strongly recommend you run the provided audit script to review namespace-scoped access. * The script identifies Roles/RoleBindings that grant cross-namespace access for the GitOps operator's features (created via .spec.sourceNamespaces). * Run it to verify and confirm that only the intended namespaces have cross-namespace access to deploy applications. For more details, refer to : - https://github.com/redhat-developer/gitops-operator/tree/master/scripts/audit-namespace-roles

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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-416Use After Free (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #7
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
When freeing pointers, be sure to set them to NULL once they are freed. However, the utilization of multiple or complex data structures may lower the usefulness of this strategy.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (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

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-285, CWE-266, CWE-416

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats