Vulnerability from bitnami_vulndb
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 range restrictions, accessing the entire etcd data store. Kubernetes does not rely on etcd’s built-in authentication and authorization. Instead, the API server handles authentication and authorization itself, so typical Kubernetes deployments are not affected. Versions 3.4.42, 3.5.28, and 3.6.9 contain a patch. If upgrading is not immediately possible, reduce exposure by treating the affected RPCs as unauthenticated in practice. Restrict network access to etcd server ports so only trusted components can connect and require strong client identity at the transport layer, such as mTLS with tightly scoped client certificate distribution.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Bitnami",
"name": "etcd",
"purl": "pkg:bitnami/etcd"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.4.42"
},
{
"introduced": "3.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.5.28"
},
{
"introduced": "3.6.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.6.9"
}
],
"type": "SEMVER"
}
],
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33343"
],
"database_specific": {
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:etcd:etcd:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"severity": "Medium"
},
"details": "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 range restrictions, accessing the entire etcd data store. Kubernetes does not rely on etcd\u2019s built-in authentication and authorization. Instead, the API server handles authentication and authorization itself, so typical Kubernetes deployments are not affected. Versions 3.4.42, 3.5.28, and 3.6.9 contain a patch. If upgrading is not immediately possible, reduce exposure by treating the affected RPCs as unauthenticated in practice. Restrict network access to etcd server ports so only trusted components can connect and require strong client identity at the transport layer, such as mTLS with tightly scoped client certificate distribution.",
"id": "BIT-etcd-2026-33343",
"modified": "2026-09-08T08:34:36.952Z",
"published": "2026-03-27T11:39:26.076Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/security/advisories/GHSA-rfx7-8w68-q57q"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33343"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.6.2",
"summary": "etcd: Nested etcd transactions bypass RBAC authorization checks"
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.