dbcve.org
Improper AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-285

CVE-2024-8676

HIGH · 7.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-11-26
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
83/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable 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
A vulnerability was found in CRI-O, where it can be requested to take a checkpoint archive of a container and later be asked to restore it. When it does that restoration, it attempts to restore the mounts from the restore archive instead of the pod request. As a result, the validations run on the pod spec, verifying that the pod has access to the mounts it specifies are not applicable to a restored container. This flaw allows a malicious user to trick CRI-O into restoring a pod that doesn't have access to host mounts. The user needs access to the kubelet or cri-o socket to call the restore endpoint and trigger the restore.

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 CRI-O, when restoring a container from a checkpoint archive, the restore operation uses mount information from the archive instead of validating against the pod spec. This bypasses the security checks that verify the pod has permission to access the specified mounts, potentially allowing a container to gain unauthorized access to host mounts.

MitigationRestrict access to the kubelet and cri-o sockets to trusted users only. Apply the vendor patch when available to ensure restore operations validate mounts against the pod spec rather than trusting the checkpoint archive.

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
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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. Identify CRI-O installation and version
    Run `crio --version` or check the installed package version using your system package manager (e.g., `rpm -q cri-o` or `dpkg -l cri-o`)
    Affected if The installed version falls within any affected version range and is prior to the fixed version - compare your version to vendor release notes for this CVE
  2. Verify checkpoint/restore is enabled
    Check the CRI-O configuration file (typically at `/etc/crio/crio.conf`) for the `enable_criu_support` or `enable_checkpoints` option under the `[crio.runtime]` or `[crio]` section
    Affected if Checkpoint and restore support is enabled in the configuration (this feature must be active for the vulnerability to be exploitable)
  3. Confirm kubelet access controls
    Review permissions on the CRI-O socket (typically `/var/run/crio/crio.sock`) and kubelet socket (typically `/var/run/kubelet.sock`) using `ls -la` - verify which users and groups have access
    Affected if Untrusted users or processes have read/write access to these sockets, as they could trigger a malicious restore operation
  4. Check for recent restore operations
    Review container runtime logs (journalctl -u crio or log files in /var/log/crio/) for entries containing 'restore' or 'criu' operations to identify any restore activity
    Affected if Restore operations have been performed, particularly from checkpoint archives that may have been created by untrusted sources

A user is affected if they run a vulnerable CRI-O version with checkpoint/restore enabled and allow untrusted users access to the container runtime sockets, allowing potential unauthorized host mount access during container restore operations.

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.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Restrict access to the kubelet and cri-o sockets to trusted users only. Apply the vendor patch when available to ensure restore operations validate mounts against the pod spec rather than trusting the checkpoint archive.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-8676 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2024-8676 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