OperationsApplication · Kubernetes
CVE-2023-1943
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 · uneditedPrivilege Escalation in kOps using GCE/GCP Provider in Gossip Mode.
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 · moderate confidenceA privilege escalation vulnerability exists in kOps when using the GCE/GCP provider in Gossip Mode. An attacker with limited access could potentially escalate privileges by exploiting the gossip protocol communication between kOps-managed nodes in GCP environments.
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
OperationsApplication
< 1.25.4>= 1.26.0, < 1.26.2CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 kOps versionRun 'kops version' or check the kOps binary version installed in your environmentAffected if The installed version is less than 1.25.4, or greater than or equal to 1.26.0 but less than 1.26.2
-
Confirm GCP/GCE provider usageReview your cluster configuration file or check the cloud provider setting in your kOps cluster spec (look for 'gce' or 'gcp' as the cloud provider)Affected if Your cluster is configured to use GCE/GCP as the cloud provider
-
Verify Gossip Mode is enabledCheck your kOps cluster configuration for gossip settings - look for 'gossip' in the cluster spec, typically under the networking or topology configurationAffected if Gossip mode is enabled in your cluster configuration (this is sometimes the default for certain GCE deployments)
-
Inspect gossip protocol network accessReview firewall rules and network policies that allow communication between nodes via the gossip protocol portsAffected if Nodes can freely communicate over gossip protocol without restricted network policies or limited permissions
You are affected if you are running a vulnerable kOps version (less than 1.25.4 or between 1.26.0 and 1.26.2) AND using the GCE/GCP provider with Gossip Mode enabled.
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 · scoped1.25.41.26.2
Upgrade kOps to the latest version containing the security fix. If an immediate upgrade is not possible, review and restrict gossip protocol permissions and network access between nodes until the patch can be applied.
kOps 1.26.2 (or 1.25.4+)
- Upgrade kOps to version 1.26.2 or later if using the 1.26.x release line
- Alternatively, upgrade to version 1.25.4 or later if using the 1.25.x release line
- After upgrading, verify that GCE/GCP provider operations in Gossip Mode function correctly
- Confirm the upgrade resolves the privilege escalation by testing the affected functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Operations
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-1943 — 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-2023-1943 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