CVE-2023-41333
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 · uneditedCilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. An attacker with the ability to create or modify CiliumNetworkPolicy objects in a particular namespace is able to affect traffic on an entire Cilium cluster, potentially bypassing policy enforcement in other namespaces. By using a crafted `endpointSelector` that uses the `DoesNotExist` operator on the `reserved:init` label, the attacker can create policies that bypass namespace restrictions and affect the entire Cilium cluster. This includes potentially allowing or denying all traffic. This attack requires API server access, as described in the Kubernetes API Server Attacker section of the Cilium Threat Model. This issue has been resolved in Cilium versions 1.14.2, 1.13.7, and 1.12.14. As a workaround an admission webhook can be used to prevent the use of `endpointSelectors` that use the `DoesNotExist` operator on the `reserved:init` label in CiliumNetworkPolicies.
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 analysisA sensitive function is reachable with no authentication at all, so anyone who finds the endpoint can use it. These are routinely discovered by automated scanning. The fix is to require and enforce authentication on every privileged path, with no exceptions left open.
General guidance for the missing authentication class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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< 1.12.14>= 1.13.0, < 1.13.7>= 1.14.0, < 1.14.2CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
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 · scoped1.12.141.13.71.14.2
1.12.14, 1.13.7, or 1.14.2 (depending on your current release train)
- 1. Identify the current Cilium version running in the cluster using `cilium version` or checking the Cilium Operator pods.
- 2. Determine which release train you are on (1.12.x, 1.13.x, or 1.14.x) to select the appropriate fixed version.
- 3. Upgrade Cilium to version 1.12.14 (if on 1.12.x), 1.13.7 (if on 1.13.x), or 1.14.2 (if on 1.14.x) or later using your cluster's upgrade procedure (e.g., `cilium upgrade` via Helm or the Cilium Operator).
- 4. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking `cilium version` and ensuring the Cilium pods are running.
- 5. As a secondary defense-in-depth measure, consider deploying an admission webhook to reject CiliumNetworkPolicy objects containing `endpointSelectors` that use the `DoesNotExist` operator on the `reserved:init` label.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-41333 — 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-2023-41333 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