CVE-2026-24514
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 ingress-nginx where the validating admission controller feature is subject to a denial of service condition. By sending large requests to the validating admission controller, an attacker can cause memory consumption, which may result in the ingress-nginx controller pod being killed or the node running out of memory.
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 confidenceThe ingress-nginx validating admission controller lacks proper request size limits, allowing attackers to send large requests that cause excessive memory consumption. This memory exhaustion leads to denial of service as the controller pod is killed or the node runs out of memory.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 ingress-nginx controller is deployedRun 'kubectl get pods -n <ingress-namespace>' and look for ingress-nginx controller pods, or check for ingressClass resources with 'kubectl get ingressclass'Affected if No ingress-nginx controller is installed, this CVE does not apply
-
Check ingress-nginx versionRun 'kubectl get deployment -n <ingress-namespace> <ingress-controller-name> -o jsonpath="{.spec.template.spec.containers[0].image}"' and compare the version to known vulnerable versionsAffected if Running a version without request size limit enforcement in the admission controller
-
Verify admission webhook is enabledCheck for ValidatingWebhookConfiguration with 'kubectl get validatingwebhookconfiguration' and look for ingress-nginx admission webhooksAffected if The admission webhook is not present, the vulnerability path does not exist
-
Check for proxy body size limit annotationRun 'kubectl get ingressclass <ingress-class-name> -o jsonpath={.metadata.annotations}' or check Ingress resources for 'nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/proxy-body-size' annotationAffected if No proxy-body-size limit is configured on any Ingress, allowing unbounded request sizes
-
Verify memory limits on controller podsRun 'kubectl get deployment -n <ingress-namespace> <ingress-controller-name> -o jsonpath="{.spec.template.spec.containers[0].resources.limits.memory}"'Affected if No memory limits are set, or limits are excessively high allowing unbounded memory growth
Environment is affected if ingress-nginx admission controller is deployed without request body size limits configured and without memory limits on the controller pods.
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 dataImplement request body size limits and configure appropriate memory limits on the ingress-nginx controller pods to prevent unbounded memory consumption from large admission requests.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-24514 — 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-2026-24514 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