Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-67499 is a medium-severity Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (CWE-200) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Cni Network Plugins. Its CVSS base score is 6.6 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Network Sniffing (T1040); ranked at the 3th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-202173
Vulnerability Data
The CNI portmap plugin allows containers to emulate opening a host port, forwarding that traffic to the container. Versions 1.6.0 through 1.8.0 inadvertently forward all traffic with the same destination port as the host port when the portmap plugin is…
more
configured with the nftables backend, thus ignoring the destination IP. This includes traffic not intended for the node itself, i.e. traffic to containers hosted on the node. Containers that request HostPort forwarding can intercept all traffic destined for that port. This requires that the portmap plugin be explicitly configured to use the nftables backend. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.0. To workaround, configure the portmap plugin to use the iptables backend. It does not have this vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Vulnerability enables containers to intercept traffic for a forwarded port (ignoring dest IP), directly facilitating network sniffing (T1040) and adversary-in-the-middle interception (T1557).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces rules that prevent port-based forwarding from ignoring destination IP and exposing traffic to unauthorized containers.
Controls and monitors communications at network boundaries so containers cannot intercept host-destined traffic via flawed portmap rules.
Requires explicit configuration settings that select the non-vulnerable iptables backend instead of nftables for the portmap plugin.
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.
PR.AA-05 directly enforces least-privilege authorization that blocks most unauthorized disclosures, yet CWE-200 also arises from logging, error messages, and side-channel paths that access controls alone do not address.
PR.DS-10 mostly prevents CWE-200 by directly eliminating unauthorized access to sensitive data-in-use, yet only partially addresses the weakness because CWE-200 spans many other exposure vectors outside runtime protection.
PR.IR-01's segmentation/zero-trust controls largely eliminate network-level unauthorized access paths that enable exposure, yet CWE-200 spans many additional vectors (API responses, logs, app logic) that network controls alone cannot close.
Secure SDLC practices catch most exposure flaws via design, testing and release controls, yet CWE-200 spans runtime/config issues a single development outcome cannot fully close.
PR.AA-01 supplies proper credential lifecycle controls that reduce unauthorized access paths, yet leaves many other exposure vectors (error messages, logging, side channels, etc.) unaddressed.
Authentication verifies actor identity and is a prerequisite for access decisions, yet addresses only one facet of the broad set of exposure vectors in CWE-200.
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.
Restricting anonymous or unknown access and encrypting high-value information limits the exposure of sensitive data that would otherwise be obtainable by unauthorized actors.
Suppressing system details, error specifics, and previous log-on information until successful authentication reduces the information an unauthenticated attacker can gather.
By requiring owners to assign sensitivity labels and corresponding handling rules, the control ensures that information is not left unmarked and therefore reduces the chance that sensitive data will be exposed to unauthorized actors.
Requiring encryption, access controls, and recipient authentication for transfers directly reduces the chance that sensitive data reaches an unauthorized observer.
Secure delivery, protected storage, and confidentiality of allocation records limit exposure of authentication material to unauthorized observers.
Requiring defined procedures, assigned roles, and technical/organizational measures for handling PII reduces the chance that sensitive personal data will be exposed to unauthorized actors through inadequate handling or missing safeguards.