CiliumApplication

CVE-2024-25630

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-02-20
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 1.14.7 or later.
See remediation →
58/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. For Cilium users who are using CRDs to store Cilium state (the default configuration) and Wireguard transparent encryption, traffic to/from the Ingress and health endpoints is not encrypted. This issue affects Cilium v1.14 before v1.14.7 and has been patched in Cilium v1.14.7. There is no workaround to this issue.

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 confidence

In Cilium deployments using CRDs for state storage (the default) with Wireguard transparent encryption enabled, traffic destined to/from the Ingress and health endpoints is incorrectly transmitted in plaintext rather than being encrypted. This creates an encryption bypass where sensitive traffic that should be protected remains unencrypted.

MitigationUpgrade Cilium to version v1.14.7 or later to patch this vulnerability. There is no workaround; the upgrade is required.

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
CiliumApplication
Affected:>= 1.14.0, < 1.14.7

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
Adjacent
Complexity
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check installed Cilium version
    Run 'cilium version' or 'cilium-agent --version' on any node running the Cilium agent, or check the container image tag of the cilium-agent DaemonSet
    Affected if Version is 1.14.0 through 1.14.6 (>= 1.14.0 and < 1.14.7)
  2. Verify Wireguard transparent encryption is enabled
    Check the Cilium ConfigMap (typically named 'cilium-config' in the cilium namespace) for wireguard.encryption.enabled set to 'true', or run 'cilium config get | grep wireguard'
    Affected if Wireguard encryption is enabled in the configuration
  3. Confirm CRDs are used for state storage
    Check the Cilium ConfigMap for 'kvstore' setting. If unset or set to 'crds', the CRD backend is in use. Run 'kubectl get cm -n cilium cilium-config -o yaml' to inspect
    Affected if CRD backend is configured (this is the default setting)
  4. Identify if Ingress controller or health endpoints are in use
    Check for Ingress resources in the cluster with 'kubectl get ingress --all-namespaces' and verify the cilium-agent health endpoint is accessible. The vulnerability affects traffic to these endpoints specifically
    Affected if Ingress resources exist in the cluster or health endpoints are actively used

A user is affected if they run Cilium version 1.14.0-1.14.6 with Wireguard encryption enabled, using the default CRD backend, and have Ingress resources or health endpoints in use.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 1.14.7 or later
Fixed in 1.14.7
Interim mitigation

Upgrade Cilium to version v1.14.7 or later to patch this vulnerability. There is no workaround; the upgrade is required.

Recommended fix High confidence

Cilium 1.14.7

  1. Upgrade Cilium to version 1.14.7 or later to resolve the unencrypted traffic vulnerability

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Cilium Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,760
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,416.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-25630 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-25630 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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