CVE-2025-0426
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 security issue was discovered in Kubernetes where a large number of container checkpoint requests made to the unauthenticated kubelet read-only HTTP endpoint may cause a Node Denial of Service by filling the Node's disk.
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 confidenceIn Kubernetes, the kubelet exposes a read-only HTTP port (10255) that does not require authentication. An attacker can send numerous container checkpoint requests to this endpoint, causing checkpoint data to accumulate on the node's filesystem until disk space is exhausted, resulting in denial of service.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Verify kubelet read-only port 10255 is exposedRun a port scan or check listening ports on the node (e.g., netstat -tlnp | grep 10255 or ss -tlnp | grep 10255) to see if port 10255 is listeningAffected if Port 10255 is open and accepting connections without authentication
-
Check kubelet configuration for read-only port settingInspect the kubelet configuration or command-line flags (look for --read-only-port flag) to determine if the unauthenticated read-only port is enabledAffected if The --read-only-port flag is set to a non-zero value (typically 10255) or defaults to enabled
-
Test unauthenticated access to kubelet APISend an HTTP request to the kubelet read-only endpoint (e.g., curl http://<node-ip>:10255/pods) without any authentication credentialsAffected if The request returns pod or node information without requiring authentication
-
Check for existing checkpoint data accumulationSearch for checkpoint files in typical kubelet directories (check /var/lib/kubelet/checkpoints or similar paths for accumulating checkpoint tar files)Affected if Checkpoint files are present and growing, or disk space is being consumed by checkpoint data
If port 10255 is open and accepts unauthenticated requests, the node is vulnerable to disk exhaustion via container checkpoint accumulation.
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 dataDisable the unauthenticated kubelet read-only port (10255) or restrict network access to the kubelet API using firewall rules, network policies, or Kubernetes RBAC configurations to prevent unauthorized checkpoint requests.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $3,168.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0426 — 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-2025-0426 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