CVE-2024-22032
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 in which an RKE1 cluster keeps constantly reconciling when secrets encryption configuration is enabled. When reconciling, the Kube API secret values are written in plaintext on the AppliedSpec. Cluster owners, Cluster members, and Project members (for projects within the cluster), all have RBAC permissions to view the cluster object from the apiserver.
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 RKE1 clusters with secrets encryption enabled, a reconciliation loop causes the Kube API secret values to be written in plaintext to the AppliedSpec. Users with standard RBAC roles (Cluster owners, Cluster members, Project members) can read these plaintext secrets from the cluster object via the apiserver.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Confirm RKE1 cluster typeCheck the cluster type by querying the cluster object or checking the Rancher UI to verify this is an RKE1 provisioned cluster rather than RKE2 or K3sAffected if The cluster is not an RKE1 cluster (RKE2 and K3s are not affected by this specific CVE)
-
Verify secrets encryption is enabledCheck the cluster configuration for secrets encryption status. In RKE1, this is typically configured in the cluster.yml under the secrets_encryption option or via the Rancher API cluster objectAffected if Secrets encryption is NOT enabled - the vulnerability only affects clusters where secrets encryption is turned on
-
Inspect AppliedSpec for plaintext secretsQuery the cluster object AppliedSpec via the Kubernetes API (GET /apis/provisioning.cattle.io.clusters/{cluster-name}) or Rancher API, and examine any secret values stored within itAffected if Plaintext secret values are visible in the AppliedSpec section of the cluster object
-
Review RBAC access to cluster objectsCheck which users or groups hold Cluster owner, Cluster member, or Project member roles on the cluster, as these standard roles can read the affected cluster object dataAffected if Users with standard RBAC roles (Cluster owners, Cluster members, Project members) have access to read cluster objects
You are affected if this is an RKE1 cluster with secrets encryption enabled and users with standard RBAC roles can access cluster objects containing plaintext secrets in AppliedSpec
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 dataUpgrade to the patched RKE1 version per Rancher's security advisory. Review and restrict access to cluster objects for users who should not have visibility into AppliedSpec data.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-22032 — 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-2024-22032 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