CVE-2024-28248
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. Starting in version 1.13.9 and prior to versions 1.13.13, 1.14.8, and 1.15.2, Cilium's HTTP policies are not consistently applied to all traffic in the scope of the policies, leading to HTTP traffic being incorrectly and intermittently forwarded when it should be dropped. This issue has been patched in Cilium 1.15.2, 1.14.8, and 1.13.13. There are no known workarounds for 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 confidenceCilium's eBPF dataplane has a logic flaw in HTTP policy enforcement where traffic that should be blocked by HTTP policies is intermittently forwarded instead of dropped. This is a security bypass in the policy enforcement layer affecting only HTTP traffic within policy scope.
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>= 1.13.9, < 1.13.13>= 1.14.0, < 1.14.8>= 1.15.0, < 1.15.2CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify installed Cilium versionRun 'cilium version' or check the Cilium agent pod/container version via 'kubectl get pods -n kube-system -l k8s-app=cilium -o jsonpath="{.items[*].spec.containers[*].image}"'Affected if The version falls within any of these ranges: >= 1.13.9 and < 1.13.13, >= 1.14.0 and < 1.14.8, or >= 1.15.0 and < 1.15.2
-
Confirm HTTP policy enforcement is in useList existing Cilium network policies: run 'cilium policy get' or inspect Kubernetes NetworkPolicy resources with 'kubectl get networkpolicies -A -o yaml' and look for policies targeting HTTP (layer 7)Affected if HTTP-aware policies are defined and enforced; the bypass only affects HTTP traffic within policy scope
-
Verify Cilium agent is operationalRun 'cilium status' or check agent health via 'kubectl exec -n kube-system <cilium-pod> -- cilium status'Affected if The agent is running (the flaw exists in the eBPF dataplane processed by a running agent)
-
Check for HTTP traffic policy rulesReview existing CiliumCiliumNetworkPolicy or NetworkPolicy resources with layer7 specifications: run 'kubectl get cnp -A -o yaml' for Cilium-specific policiesAffected if Layer 7 (HTTP) rules are present in any policy, as the bypass only impacts HTTP traffic enforcement
You are affected if your Cilium version is within the vulnerable ranges AND you have HTTP policies enforced, since the flaw causes allowed HTTP traffic to bypass drop rules intermittently.
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 · scoped1.13.131.14.81.15.2
Upgrade Cilium to version 1.15.2, 1.14.8, or 1.13.13. No workarounds exist; this is a mandatory patch for environments relying on HTTP policy enforcement.
Upgrade to Cilium 1.13.13 (if on 1.13.x), 1.14.8 (if on 1.14.x), or 1.15.2 (if on 1.15.x)
- Determine the currently running Cilium version using 'cilium version' or your cluster configuration
- Plan the upgrade according to your current major version: if on 1.13.x, upgrade to 1.13.13; if on 1.14.x, upgrade to 1.14.8; if on 1.15.x, upgrade to 1.15.2
- Review the Cilium upgrade documentation at docs.cilium.io for your specific version upgrade path
- Take a backup of your Cilium configuration and etcd/key-value store
- Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- Execute the upgrade using your orchestration tool (e.g., Helm upgrade, operator management, or cluster provisioning tool)
- Verify the upgrade was successful and HTTP policies are functioning correctly
- Monitor cluster functionality and policy enforcement after upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-28248 — 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-2024-28248 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