CVE-2024-1725
Redhat Openshift Container Platform 4.13 … 4.15
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-1725 is a medium-severity Trust Boundary Violation (CWE-501) vulnerability in Redhat Openshift Container Platform. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data Obfuscation (T1001); ranked at the 49th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and AC-16 (Security and Privacy Attributes) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-17457
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in the kubevirt-csi component of OpenShift Virtualization's Hosted Control Plane (HCP). This issue could allow an authenticated attacker to gain access to the root HCP worker node's volume by creating a custom Persistent Volume that matches…
more
the name of a worker node.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement directly stops trusted and untrusted data from being combined by applying rules that govern allowable data movements and combinations.
Associating explicit security attributes with data objects enables enforcement mechanisms that keep trust levels from being mixed inside structures.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Documented data-flow representations make trust boundaries explicit and help surface mixing of trusted/untrusted data.
Logical segmentation and access controls enforce separation between trust domains, reducing the chance of co-mingled data structures.
Secure-development practices (coding standards, reviews, validation) directly prevent mixing trusted and untrusted data inside the same structures.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development lifecycle mandates separation of trusted and untrusted data flows, directly preventing mixing in the same structure.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including trust, segregation, input controls, etc.) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce, implement, or configure any mechanism that stops a trust boundary violation from being exploited.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (e.g. distrust external input, least privilege, zero-trust verification, fail-securely) and design reviews that reach many but not all trust-boundary violations; a bounded remainder (e.g. unsafe mixing inside trusted code or components) can still be present and exploitable.
Secure coding standards can enforce input validation and data tagging, but do not guarantee architectural separation.