CVE-2022-31080
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, a large response received by the viaduct WSClient can cause a DoS from memory exhaustion. The entire body of the response is being read into memory which could allow an attacker to send a request that returns a response with a large body. The consequence of the exhaustion is that the process which invokes a WSClient will be in a denial of service. The software is affected If users who are authenticated to the edge side connect to `cloudhub` from the edge side through WebSocket protocol. This bug has been fixed in Kubeedge 1.11.1, 1.10.2, and 1.9.4. There are currently no known workarounds.
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 confidenceIn KubeEdge versions prior to 1.11.1, 1.10.2, and 1.9.4, the viaduct WebSocket client reads entire response bodies into memory without any size limit. An authenticated edge-side user connecting to cloudhub via WebSocket can send requests that trigger large responses, causing memory exhaustion and denial of service.
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.
-
Identify KubeEdge versionRun 'kubeedge --version' or check the version of the kubeedge controller/cloudcore components installed in your clusterAffected if The installed version is < 1.9.4, or >= 1.10.0 and < 1.10.2, or >= 1.11.0 and < 1.11.1
-
Confirm cloudhub component is runningCheck if the cloudcore pod with cloudhub enabled is running in the Kubernetes cluster (typically in namespace kubeedge)Affected if cloudhub is exposed and accepting WebSocket connections from edge nodes
-
Verify WebSocket listener statusInspect the cloudcore configuration or logs to confirm the WebSocket server (cloudhub) is listening for connectionsAffected if WebSocket listener is active and accessible to edge-side users
-
Check for memory exhaustion indicatorsMonitor cloudcore pod memory usage or check logs for out-of-memory errors related to large WebSocket response handlingAffected if Memory usage grows unexpectedly when processing WebSocket responses from edge nodes
You are affected if KubeEdge version is within the vulnerable ranges AND cloudhub WebSocket component is enabled and accessible to authenticated edge users.
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 version 1.11.1, 1.10.2, or 1.9.4. No workarounds are available.
Upgrade to KubeEdge 1.9.4 (for 1.9.x branch), 1.10.2 (for 1.10.x branch), or 1.11.1 (for 1.11.x branch) - choose the appropriate version based on your current branch
- 1. Identify the currently installed KubeEdge version by running: kubectl get nodes -o wide or checking the KubeEdge version file
- 2. Determine the appropriate upgrade target: if running <1.9.4 upgrade to 1.9.4; if running >=1.10.0 and <1.10.2 upgrade to 1.10.2; if running >=1.11.0 and <1.11.1 upgrade to 1.11.1
- 3. Backup all KubeEdge configurations including cloudcore and edgecore configs, typically stored in /etc/kubeedge/
- 4. For cloud side (cloudcore): Download the new version from the KubeEdge releases, stop the cloudcore service, replace the binary, and restart the service
- 5. For edge side (edgecore): Update the edgecore binary on each edge node to the same version as cloudcore
- 6. Verify the upgrade by checking that all pods are running and the version is correct: kubectl get pods -n kubeedge -o wide
- 7. Test WebSocket connectivity between edge and cloud to confirm the memory exhaustion fix is applied
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-31080 — 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-2022-31080 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