Etcd-Io Etcd vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-33413 [HIGH] CWE-862 CVE-2026-33413: etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.42 etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.42, 3.5.28, and 3.6.9, unauthorized users may bypass authentication or authorization checks and call certain etcd functions in clusters that expose the gRPC API to untrusted or partially trusted clients. In unpatched etcd clusters with etcd auth enabled,

CVE-2026-33343 [NONE] CWE-863 CVE-2026-33343: etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.42 etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.42, 3.5.28, and 3.6.9, an authenticated user with RBAC restricted permissions on key ranges can use nested transactions to bypass all key-level authorization. This allows any authenticated user with direct access to etcd to effectively ignore all key rang

CVE-2023-32082 [LOW] CWE-200 CVE-2023-32082: etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.26 etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.26 and 3.5.9, the LeaseTimeToLive API allows access to key names (not value) associated to a lease when `Keys` parameter is true, even a user doesn't have read permission to the keys. The impact is limited to a cluster which enables auth (RBAC). Versions 3

CVE-2020-15114 [HIGH] CWE-400 CVE-2020-15114: In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, the etcd gateway is a simple TCP proxy to allow for basic In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, the etcd gateway is a simple TCP proxy to allow for basic service discovery and access. However, it is possible to include the gateway address as an endpoint. This results in a denial of service, since the endpoint can become stuck in a loop of requesting itself until there are no more available file descript

CVE-2020-15115 [MEDIUM] CWE-521 CVE-2020-15115: etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10 does not perform any password length validation, which allows etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10 does not perform any password length validation, which allows for very short passwords, such as those with a length of one. This may allow an attacker to guess or brute-force users' passwords with little computational effort.

CVE-2020-15136 [MEDIUM] CWE-287 CVE-2020-15136: In ectd before versions 3.4.10 and 3.3.23, gateway TLS authentication is only applied to endpoints d In ectd before versions 3.4.10 and 3.3.23, gateway TLS authentication is only applied to endpoints detected in DNS SRV records. When starting a gateway, TLS authentication will only be attempted on endpoints identified in DNS SRV records for a given domain, which occurs in the discoverEndpoints function. No authentication is performed against endpoi

CVE-2020-15113 [MEDIUM] CWE-281 CVE-2020-15113: In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, certain directory paths are created (etcd data directory In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, certain directory paths are created (etcd data directory and the directory path when provided to automatically generate self-signed certificates for TLS connections with clients) with restricted access permissions (700) by using the os.MkdirAll. This function does not perform any permission checks when a giv

CVE-2020-15112 [MEDIUM] CWE-20 CVE-2020-15112: In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the nu In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the number of entries in the ReadAll method in wal/wal.go. This could cause issues when WAL entries are being read during consensus as an arbitrary etcd consensus participant could go down from a runtime panic when reading the entry.

CVE-2020-15106 [MEDIUM] CWE-20 CVE-2020-15106: In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, a large slice causes panic in decodeRecord method. The si In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, a large slice causes panic in decodeRecord method. The size of a record is stored in the length field of a WAL file and no additional validation is done on this data. Therefore, it is possible to forge an extremely large frame size that can unintentionally panic at the expense of any RAFT participant trying