CVE-2022-31078
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedKubeEdge is an open source system for extending native containerized application orchestration capabilities to hosts at Edge. Prior to versions 1.11.1, 1.10.2, and 1.9.4, the CloudCore Router does not impose a limit on the size of responses to requests made by the REST handler. An attacker could use this weakness to make a request that will return an HTTP response with a large body and cause DoS of CloudCore. In the HTTP Handler API, the rest handler makes a request to a pre-specified handle. The handle will return an HTTP response that is then read into memory. The consequence of the exhaustion is that CloudCore will be in a denial of service. Only an authenticated user of the cloud can make an attack. It will be affected only when users enable `router` module in the config file `cloudcore.yaml`. This bug has been fixed in Kubeedge 1.11.1, 1.10.2, and 1.9.4. As a workaround, disable the router switch in the config file `cloudcore.yaml`.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe CloudCore Router's REST handler in KubeEdge does not enforce a size limit on HTTP responses from requested handles. An authenticated attacker on the cloud side can craft requests that return excessively large responses, causing memory exhaustion and denial of service. Only deployments with the router module enabled in cloudcore.yaml are affected.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 1.9.4>= 1.10.0, < 1.10.2>= 1.11.0, < 1.11.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check if router module is enabled in cloudcore.yamlLocate the cloudcore.yaml configuration file (typically in /etc/kubeedge/ or the deployment directory) and search for the 'router' module section. Verify whether 'enable: true' is set under the router module configuration.Affected if The router module is enabled (enable: true) in cloudcore.yaml - if disabled, the deployment is not affected by this CVE
-
Determine installed KubeEdge versionRun 'kubeedge --version' or check the version of the cloudcore pod/container (e.g., 'kubectl get pods -n kubeedge -o jsonpath="{.items[*].spec.containers[*].image}"'). Compare the version number against the affected ranges.Affected if The installed version is less than 1.9.4, OR is >= 1.10.0 but less than 1.10.2, OR is >= 1.11.0 but less than 1.11.1
A user is affected only if the router module is enabled AND the KubeEdge version falls within one of the vulnerable version ranges.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped1.9.41.10.21.11.1
Upgrade to KubeEdge versions 1.11.1, 1.10.2, or 1.9.4 or later, or disable the router module in cloudcore.yaml as a workaround.
Upgrade to KubeEdge 1.9.4, 1.10.2, or 1.11.1 (depending on your current branch)
- 1. Identify the currently installed KubeEdge version by checking `kubeedge --version` or inspecting your deployment manifests
- 2. Determine which upgrade path applies based on your current version: upgrade to 1.9.4 if on 1.9.x branch, to 1.10.2 if on 1.10.x branch, or to 1.11.1 if on 1.11.x branch
- 3. Backup your current CloudCore configuration file `cloudcore.yaml` and any Kubernetes resources related to KubeEdge
- 4. Upgrade the KubeEdge cloud component (CloudCore) to the appropriate fixed version using your deployment method (e.g., Helm, manifests, or kubeedge operator)
- 5. Verify the CloudCore pod restarts successfully and the router module functions correctly
- 6. If upgrade is not immediately possible as a temporary mitigation, edit `cloudcore.yaml` and set `router.enable: false` under the router module configuration section, then restart CloudCore
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-31078 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-31078 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data