CVE-2021-20182: A privilege escalation flaw was found in openshift4/ose-docker-builder.
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 35/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1.1% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 66.5% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
A privilege escalation flaw was found in openshift4/ose-docker-builder. The build container runs with high privileges using a chrooted environment instead of runc. If an attacker can gain access to this build container, they can potentially utilize the raw devices of the underlying node, such as the network and storage devices, to at least escalate their privileges to that of the cluster admin. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.
- Published
- Feb 23, 2021
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.1% · 66th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-552
Report tools
Action score
35
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 35 / 40 · 8.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.1%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| redhat | openshift container platform | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:openshift_container_platform |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- redhat openshift container platform4.4 and later · before 4.4.33
- redhat openshift container platform4.5 and later · before 4.5.30
- redhat openshift container platform4.6 and later · before 4.6.15
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (redhat). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
n/a openshift
- github.com/openshift/builder v0.0.0-20210118193943-6d10f5202a76affected
Same product
redhat: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2017-7481Ansible before versions 2.3.1.0 and 2.4.0.0 fails to properly mark lookup-plugin results as unsafe.40Plan
- CVE-2018-1085openshift-ansible before versions 3.9.23, 3.7.46 deploys a misconfigured etcd file that causes the SSL client certificate authentication to 40Plan
- CVE-2020-27836A flaw was found in cluster-ingress-operator.39Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-10706May 12, 2020 · A flaw was found in OpenShift Container Platform where OAuth tokens are not encrypted when the encryption of data at rest is enabled.26Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-10752Jun 12, 2020 · A flaw was found in the OpenShift API Server, where it failed to sufficiently protect OAuthTokens by leaking them into the logs when an API 30Monitor
- Later →CVE-2019-10200Mar 19, 2021 · A flaw was discovered in OpenShift Container Platform 4 where, by default, users with access to create pods also have the ability to schedul28Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-552 · Files or Directories Accessible to External PartiesCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
ATT&CK techniques
- OS Credential DumpingT1003
- Data from Network Shared DriveT1039
- Automated CollectionT1119
- Data from Information RepositoriesT1213
- Data from Cloud Storage ObjectT1530
- Unsecured Credentials: Credentials in FilesT1552.001
- Unsecured Credentials: Bash HistoryT1552.003
- Unsecured Credentials: Private KeysT1552.004
- Unsecured Credentials: Group Policy PreferencesT1552.006
- Credentials from Password StoresT1555
- Data from Configuration RepositoryT1602
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.