CVE-2024-22030
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified within Rancher that can be exploited in narrow circumstances through a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack. An attacker would need to have control of an expired domain or execute a DNS spoofing/hijacking attack against the domain to exploit this vulnerability. The targeted domain is the one used as the Rancher URL.
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 confidenceRancher fails to properly validate the domain used as the Rancher URL, allowing a man-in-the-middle attacker to intercept traffic if they control an expired domain or perform DNS spoofing against the configured Rancher hostname.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/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 the configured Rancher URLLog into the Rancher UI and navigate to Global Settings > Advanced Settings > server-url, or run: kubectl get settings server-url -o jsonpath='{.value}'Affected if The Rancher URL is set to a domain that is expired, easily transferable, or not under the organization's control
-
Verify TLS certificate validation is enabledCheck the Rancher container/process logs for errors related to certificate validation, or inspect the Rancher TLS configuration: kubectl get pods -n cattle-system -l app=rancher -o jsonpath='{.items[*].spec.containers[*].env}' | jqAffected if Certificate validation is disabled or bypassed in the Rancher TLS configuration
-
Confirm hostname verification is enforcedReview Rancher API server TLS settings: kubectl get gateway -A -o yaml 2>/dev/null || kubectl get ingress -A -o yaml | grep -i hostnameAffected if Hostname verification is disabled or the TLS configuration lacks proper hostname validation rules
-
Check the domain's registration and expiration statusUse WHOIS lookup on the configured Rancher URL domain: whois $(echo $RANCHER_URL | cut -d'/' -f3)Affected if The domain is expired, about to expire, or shows signs of being unmaintained
-
Audit DNS configuration for the Rancher hostnameRun: nslookup <rancher-hostname> and dig <rancher-hostname> to verify DNS resolves to the expected IP, then check for any DNS anomalies or delegated zonesAffected if DNS resolves to unexpected IPs, shows zone delegation to untrusted parties, or is susceptible to spoofing
A user is affected if their configured Rancher URL domain is expired, transferable, or lacks proper TLS/hostname verification, allowing an attacker to intercept traffic via domain control or DNS spoofing.
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 dataEnsure the Rancher URL domain is actively managed and not susceptible to expiration/transfer; implement proper certificate chain validation and hostname verification to prevent MITM attacks.
- 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-2024-22030 — 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-2024-22030 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