CVE-2025-5187
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 exists in the NodeRestriction admission controller in Kubernetes clusters where node users can delete their corresponding node object by patching themselves with an OwnerReference to a cluster-scoped resource. If the OwnerReference resource does not exist or is subsequently deleted, the given node object will be deleted via garbage collection.
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 confidenceThe NodeRestriction admission controller in Kubernetes has a flaw where node users can delete their own node object by patching it with an OwnerReference to a non-existent cluster-scoped resource. When the fake owner reference fails to resolve, Kubernetes garbage collection deletes the node object.
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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
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 NodeRestriction admission controller is enabledCheck the Kubernetes API server configuration (--enable-admission-plugins flag) to confirm NodeRestriction is listed among enabled admission controllersAffected if NodeRestriction is not in the enabled admission controllers list
-
Identify service accounts with node patch permissionsRun 'kubectl get clusterrolebindings -o json' and search for ClusterRoleBindings that grant 'patch' or 'update' verbs on 'nodes' resources to user groups starting with 'system:nodes' or 'system:node:'Affected if Any ClusterRoleBinding grants patch/update permissions on nodes to node users
-
Review node object OwnerReferencesRun 'kubectl get nodes -o json' and inspect each node's metadata.ownerReferences. Flag any OwnerReference pointing to a non-existent cluster-scoped resourceAffected if Any node object has an OwnerReference to a non-existent cluster-scoped resource (this indicates active exploitation or attempted exploitation)
-
Check audit logs for node patching eventsReview kube-apiserver audit logs for 'patch' or 'update' operations on 'nodes' resources from subjects in the system:nodes group, looking for requests that include OwnerReference modificationsAffected if Audit logs show node objects being patched with OwnerReferences by node-associated service accounts
User is affected if NodeRestriction is enabled AND any service account with a node username (system:nodes/*) has patch or update permissions on node objects, or if node objects already contain suspicious OwnerReferences to non-existent resources
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 dataUpdate Kubernetes to the patched version containing the NodeRestriction fix and review RBAC policies to restrict node object patching to only authorized service accounts.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-5187 — 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-2025-5187 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