CVE-2024-25621VulnerabilityPublished 9 Dec 2025Updated 29 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenStack Platform 17.1.12 director Operator container images

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-47913

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 11:19 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 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

AI-suggested

Red Hat has provided updated container images that fix these vulnerabilities and recommends deploying these updated images from the Red Hat container registry. For CVE-2024-25621, administrators can manually mitigate the issue by restricting permissions on containerd directories using chmod 700 on /var/lib/containerd and related runtime directories or by running containerd in rootless mode. No additional action is specified for the SSH client panic beyond updating the container images.

Description

Red Hat OpenStack Platform 17.1.12 director Operator container images include security fixes for two vulnerabilities: a local privilege escalation in containerd (CVE-2024-25621) and an SSH client panic issue (CVE-2025-47913). The containerd flaw arises from overly broad default permissions allowing local users to access sensitive data and potentially escalate privileges. Updated container images are available from Red Hat's container registry to address these issues.

Impact

The containerd vulnerability (CVE-2024-25621) can allow local users on the host system to escalate privileges by accessing sensitive container and Kubernetes volume data, potentially compromising host integrity. The SSH client panic (CVE-2025-47913) may cause denial of service conditions due to unexpected SSH agent responses. Both vulnerabilities impact the security and stability of the affected Red Hat OpenStack Platform director Operator container images.

CWE-279Incorrect Execution-Assigned Permissions (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
While it is executing, the product sets the permissions of an object in a way that violates the intended permissions that have been specified by the user.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
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
Web Server Logs Tampering (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Oct 2026, 11:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-279, CWE-241

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats