OpenshiftApplication · Redhat
CVE-2022-3259
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 · uneditedOpenshift 4.9 does not use HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) which may allow man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks.
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 confidenceOpenShift 4.9 does not implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) headers on HTTP responses, which prevents browsers from remembering to only use HTTPS for future connections to the cluster. This allows attackers on the same network to intercept traffic via man-in-the-middle attacks.
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
OpenshiftApplication
= 4.9CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Verify OpenShift version is 4.9Run 'oc get clusterversion' or check the installed OpenShift version via the cluster consoleAffected if The installed version is exactly 4.9 (not a later version that may have HSTS enabled by default)
-
Check ingress router for HSTS headersMake an HTTPS request to any route exposed through the OpenShift ingress and inspect response headers for 'Strict-Transport-Security'Affected if The Strict-Transport-Security header is missing from HTTPS responses served by the cluster ingress
-
Inspect ingress controller configurationRun 'oc get ingresscontroller default -n openshift-ingress-operator -o yaml' and check for HSTS-related annotations or spec settingsAffected if No HSTS configuration (such as annotations or spec fields) is present in the ingress controller definition
-
Verify router pods are not adding HSTSCheck the router deployment in 'openshift-ingress' namespace for environment variables or config that might control HSTS header insertionAffected if No HSTS header injection is configured in the router deployment
-
Test browser-enforced HTTPS behaviorAccess a cluster route via HTTP and observe whether the browser receives HSTS headers that would enforce future HTTPS-only connectionsAffected if Browser does not receive or enforce HSTS policy for the cluster domains
You are affected if you are running OpenShift 4.9 and HTTPS responses from the ingress router do not contain Strict-Transport-Security headers.
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.
From vendor dataEnable HSTS on the OpenShift 4.9 ingress router by configuring the appropriate annotations or cluster-wide policy to include Strict-Transport-Security headers in all HTTPS responses.
Fix this in Openshift
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-3259 — 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-2022-3259 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