ghsa-24qp-4xx8-3jvj
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-03-24 19:05
Modified
2025-03-24 21:47
Severity ?
3.2 (Low) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Summary
Cilium East-west traffic not subject to egress policy enforcement for requests via Gateway API load balancers
Details

Impact

For Cilium users who: - Use Gateway API for Ingress for some services AND - Use LB-IPAM or BGP for LB Service implementation AND - Use network policies to block egress traffic from workloads in a namespace to workloads in other namespaces

Egress traffic from workloads covered by such network policies to LoadBalancers configured by Gateway resources will incorrectly be allowed.

LoadBalancer resources not deployed via a Gateway API configuration are not affected by this issue.

Patches

This issue was fixed by https://github.com/cilium/proxy/pull/1172.

This issue affects:

  • Cilium v1.15 between v1.15.0 and v1.15.14 inclusive
  • Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.7 inclusive
  • Cilium v1.17 between v1.17.0 and v1.17.1 inclusive

This issue is fixed in:

  • Cilium v1.15.15
  • Cilium v1.16.8
  • Cilium v1.17.2

Workarounds

A Clusterwide Cilium Network Policy can be used to work around this issue for users who are unable to upgrade. An outline of such a policy is provided below:

apiVersion: "cilium.io/v2" kind: CiliumClusterwideNetworkPolicy metadata: name: "workaround" spec: endpointSelector: matchExpressions: - key: reserved:ingress operator: Exists ingress: - fromEntities: - world

  • The policy opens up connectivity from all locations outside the cluster into the Cilium Ingress Gateway.
  • The policy establishes a default deny for all other traffic towards the Cilium Ingress Gateway, including all in-cluster sources.
  • It is possible to tailor the policy to more narrowly allow inbound traffic while creating a default deny posture for traffic between namespaces. Users should edit the policy to bring it in line with the security requirements particular to their environments.

Acknowledgements

The Cilium community has worked together with members of the Isovalent team to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @jrajahalme for the fix.

For more information

If you think you have found a vulnerability affecting Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our security mailing list at security@cilium.io. This is a private mailing list for the Cilium security team, and your report will be treated as top priority.

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/cilium/cilium"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.16.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.16.8"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/cilium/cilium"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.17.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.17.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/cilium/cilium"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.15.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.15.15"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-30162"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-24T19:05:04Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-03-24T19:15:52Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\nFor Cilium users who:\n- Use Gateway API for Ingress for some services **AND**\n- Use [LB-IPAM](https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/network/lb-ipam/) or BGP for LB Service implementation **AND**\n- Use network policies to block egress traffic from workloads in a namespace to workloads in other namespaces\n\nEgress traffic from workloads covered by such network policies to LoadBalancers configured by `Gateway` resources will incorrectly be allowed.\n\nLoadBalancer resources not deployed via a Gateway API configuration are not affected by this issue.\n\n### Patches\n\nThis issue was fixed by https://github.com/cilium/proxy/pull/1172.\n\nThis issue affects:\n\n- Cilium v1.15 between v1.15.0 and v1.15.14 inclusive\n- Cilium v1.16 between v1.16.0 and v1.16.7 inclusive\n- Cilium v1.17 between v1.17.0 and v1.17.1 inclusive\n\nThis issue is fixed in:\n\n- Cilium v1.15.15\n- Cilium v1.16.8\n- Cilium v1.17.2\n\n### Workarounds\n\nA Clusterwide Cilium Network Policy can be used to work around this issue for users who are unable to upgrade. An outline of such a policy is provided below:\n\n```\napiVersion: \"cilium.io/v2\"\nkind: CiliumClusterwideNetworkPolicy\nmetadata:\n  name: \"workaround\"\nspec:\n  endpointSelector:\n    matchExpressions:\n    - key: reserved:ingress\n      operator: Exists\n  ingress:\n  - fromEntities:\n    - world\n```\n\n- The policy opens up connectivity from all locations outside the cluster into the Cilium Ingress Gateway.\n- The policy establishes a default deny for all other traffic towards the Cilium Ingress Gateway, including all in-cluster sources.\n- It is possible to tailor the policy to more narrowly allow inbound traffic while creating a default deny posture for traffic between namespaces. Users should edit the policy to bring it in line with the security requirements particular to their environments.\n\n### Acknowledgements\n\nThe Cilium community has worked together with members of the Isovalent team to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @jrajahalme for the fix.\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you think you have found a vulnerability affecting Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our security mailing list at [security@cilium.io](mailto:security@cilium.io). This is a private mailing list for the Cilium security team, and your report will be treated as top priority.",
  "id": "GHSA-24qp-4xx8-3jvj",
  "modified": "2025-03-24T21:47:14Z",
  "published": "2025-03-24T19:05:04Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-24qp-4xx8-3jvj"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30162"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/cilium/proxy/pull/1172"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/network/lb-ipam"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Cilium East-west traffic not subject to egress policy enforcement for requests via Gateway API load balancers"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.