Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Coordinator insights_runtime_extractor.rs switch_user/GetExecutableVersionOutput process.uid/process.command_line[0] privileges management

CVSS Meta Temp Score
CVSS is a standardized scoring system to determine possibilities of attacks. The Temp Score considers temporal factors like disclosure, exploit and countermeasures. The unique Meta Score calculates the average score of different sources to provide a normalized scoring system.
Current Exploit Price (≈)
Our analysts are monitoring exploit markets and are in contact with vulnerability brokers. The range indicates the observed or calculated exploit price to be seen on exploit markets. A good indicator to understand the monetary effort required for and the popularity of an attack.
CTI Interest Score
Our Cyber Threat Intelligence team is monitoring different web sites, mailing lists, exploit markets and social media networks. The CTI Interest Score identifies the interest of attackers and the security community for this specific vulnerability in real-time. A high score indicates an elevated risk to be targeted for this vulnerability.
9.4$5k-$25k1.61-

Summaryinfo

A vulnerability was found in Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform. It has been rated as very critical. This issue affects the function switch_user/GetExecutableVersionOutput of the file extractor/src/insights_runtime_extractor.rs of the component Coordinator. This manipulation of the argument process.uid/process.command_line[0] causes privileges management. This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-104795. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.

Detailsinfo

A vulnerability classified as very critical was found in Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform (version unknown). Affected by this vulnerability is the function switch_user/GetExecutableVersionOutput of the file extractor/src/insights_runtime_extractor.rs of the component Coordinator. The manipulation of the argument process.uid/process.command_line[0] with an unknown input leads to a privileges management vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-269. The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor. As an impact it is known to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The summary by CVE is:

The insights-runtime-extractor runs as a privileged DaemonSet (`hostPID: true`) that scans container processes for runtime fingerprinting. When scanning a container, the coordinator: 1. **fork()s** a child process 2. **setns()** into the target container's PID and mount namespaces 3. **fchdir()** back to an orphaned FD pointing at the extractor's own root filesystem (where `/crio.sock` is hostPath-mounted) 4. Calls **only `seteuid(target_uid)`** — changing the effective UID but leaving the **real UID and saved-set-UID at 0** and **retaining the permitted capability set** 5. The `check_no_privileged_perms()` guard inspects only the Effective capability set (so it passes), and is **skipped entirely when the target runs as uid 0** 6. The `VersionExecutable` fingerprint invokes `fpr_kind_executable` with `process.command_line[0]` — the target's argv[0], read from `/proc/<pid>/cmdline` and **fully controlled by the workload** 7. `fpr_kind_executable` calls `exec.Command(executable, "--version").Output()` — executing the **workload's own binary** inside the workload's mount namespace while **ruid=0 in the host user namespace** The executed process can call `setuid(0)` to restore full root with `CAP_SYS_ADMIN`, and inherits the orphaned cwd which resolves into the extractor container's filesystem containing the host CRI-O socket. ## Affected Code ### 1. Insufficient privilege drop (Rust — extractor coordinator) **File:** `extractor/src/insights_runtime_extractor.rs` ```rust // Lines 139-146 — seteuid-only drop, guard skipped for root containers join_process_namespaces(process.pid)?; change_dir(current_dir); switch_user(*process.uid)?; if *process.uid != 0 { perms::check_no_privileged_perms() .expect("Must not have privileged permissions to run fingerprints"); } fingerprint::run_fingerprints(&config, out_dir, &process); ``` ```rust // Lines 182-185 — only effective UID changed; ruid/suid stay 0 fn switch_user(uid: u32) -> Result<(), ScannerError> { debug!("... Becoming user: {uid}"); seteuid(uid.into()).map_err(|e| ScannerError::Errno(e)) } ``` ### 2. Execution of untrusted binary (Go — fingerprint) **File:** `fingerprints/pkg/utils/file.go` ```go // Lines 75-80 — executes a path taken verbatim from workload's argv[0] func GetExecutableVersionOutput(executable string) (string, error) { out, err := exec.Command(executable, "--version").Output() if err != nil { return "", err } return string(out), nil } ``` ### 3. Workload-controlled path forwarded (Rust — version_executable) **File:** `version_executable.rs` ```rust // Lines 29-34 — workload-controlled command_line[0] forwarded to fingerprint return Some(vec![ fpr_kind_executable, out_dir.to_string(), String::from(&process.command_line[0]), String::from(&version_executable.runtime_kind_name), ]); ``` ## Attack Pattern **Attacker:** Any tenant able to schedule a pod (unprivileged, any namespace) **Victim:** The node running the insights-runtime-extractor DaemonSet **Trigger:** Automatic — the DaemonSet scans all container processes on the node **Attack sequence:** 1. Attacker creates a pod whose process name matches a configured versioned-executable pattern (`node`, `python`, `python3`, `MainThread`, or contains `java`) 2. The pod's main binary (at the path matching argv[0]) is a malicious executable that calls `setuid(0)` to restore root 3. When the insights operator triggers a scan, the DaemonSet forks, enters the attacker's mount namespace, and executes the attacker's binary with ruid=0 4. The attacker's code regains full root with `CAP_SYS_ADMIN` in the host user namespace 5. The inherited cwd contains the host CRI-O socket → full node compromise

The advisory is shared at access.redhat.com. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-104795 since 10/02/2026. The exploitation appears to be easy. The attack can be launched remotely. Technical details are known, but no exploit is available. The price for an exploit might be around USD $5k-$25k at the moment (estimation calculated on 10/14/2026). MITRE ATT&CK project uses the attack technique T1068 for this issue.

There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.

If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.

Productinfo

Type

Vendor

Name

License

Website

CPE 2.3info

CPE 2.2info

CVSSv4info

VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

CVSSv3info

VulDB Meta Base Score: 9.4
VulDB Meta Temp Score: 9.4

VulDB Base Score: 9.9
VulDB Temp Score: 9.9
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

CNA Base Score: 8.8
CNA Vector (redhat): 🔒

CVSSv2info

AVACAuCIA
💳💳💳💳💳💳
💳💳💳💳💳💳
💳💳💳💳💳💳
VectorComplexityAuthenticationConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock

VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

Exploitinginfo

Class: Privileges management
CWE: CWE-269 / CWE-266
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒

Physical: Partially
Local: Yes
Remote: Yes

Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒

0-DayUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
TodayUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock

Threat Intelligenceinfo

Interest: 🔍
Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍

Countermeasuresinfo

Recommended: no mitigation known
Status: 🔍

0-Day Time: 🔒

Timelineinfo

10/02/2026 CVE reserved
10/14/2026 +12 days Advisory disclosed
10/14/2026 +0 days VulDB entry created
10/14/2026 +0 days VulDB entry last update

Sourcesinfo

Vendor: redhat.com

Advisory: access.redhat.com
Status: Not defined

CVE: CVE-2026-104795 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-104795
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-419797

Entryinfo

Created: 10/14/2026 13:07
Changes: 10/14/2026 13:07 (64)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103

If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.

Discussion

No comments yet. Languages: en.

Please log in to comment.

Do you need the next level of professionalism?

Upgrade your account now!