Skip to content

CVE-2026-13325

Missing Authentication for Critical Function: Is CVE-2026-13325 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

☆ Watch

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
8.5 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-306 · Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

A flaw was found in KubeVirt's migration proxy. When spec.configuration.migrations.disableTLS is set to true on the KubeVirt custom resource, the target virt-handler binds a plain TCP listener on all interfaces (0.0.0.0/::) on a random port with no authentication, peer allow-list, or handshake token. This listener proxies directly into the target virt-launcher's virtqemud control socket. An attacker with a running pod on the cluster network can connect to this listener and issue unfiltered libvirt RPC commands against another tenant's virtual machine, including reading VM memory and configuration, modifying VM state via QMP, or destroying the VM. The bind address is unconditionally 0.0.0.0 — configuring a dedicated migration network via migrations.network only changes the advertised migration IP, not the listener bind address, so the port remains reachable on the pod network even when a dedicated migration network is configured. The API documentation describes disableTLS as removing "the additional layer of live migration encryption" without disclosing that it also removes all mutual authentication.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-13325
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-13325/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-13325)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-13325"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-13325/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-13325"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    This scores high on paper (CVSS 8.5) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Related CVEs

Same weakness: CWE-306 · Missing Authentication for Critical Function.