CVE-2024-45310

runc can be confused to create empty files/directories on the host

LOW
3.6
CVSS Score
Published: September 3, 2024 at 07:07 PM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 07:54 AM UTC
2 products affected across 2 vendorsRuncRunc

Using runc by opencontainers?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect runc - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
LOW3.6
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.3%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

runc is a CLI tool for spawning and running containers according to the OCI specification. runc 1.1.13 and earlier, as well as 1.2.0-rc2 and earlier, can be tricked into creating empty files or directories in arbitrary locations in the host filesystem by sharing a volume between two containers and exploiting a race with `os.MkdirAll`. While this could be used to create empty files, existing files would not be truncated. An attacker must have the ability to start containers using some kind of custom volume configuration. Containers using user namespaces are still affected, but the scope of places an attacker can create inodes can be significantly reduced. Sufficiently strict LSM policies (SELinux/Apparmor) can also in principle block this attack -- we suspect the industry standard SELinux policy may restrict this attack's scope but the exact scope of protection hasn't been analysed. This is exploitable using runc directly as well as through Docker and Kubernetes. The issue is fixed in runc v1.1.14 and v1.2.0-rc3. Some workarounds are available. Using user namespaces restricts this attack fairly significantly such that the attacker can only create inodes in directories that the remapped root user/group has write access to. Unless the root user is remapped to an actual user on the host (such as with rootless containers that don't use `/etc/sub[ug]id`), this in practice means that an attacker would only be able to create inodes in world-writable directories. A strict enough SELinux or AppArmor policy could in principle also restrict the scope if a specific label is applied to the runc runtime, though neither the extent to which the standard existing policies block this attack nor what exact policies are needed to sufficiently restrict this attack have been thoroughly tested.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v < 1.1.14v < 1.2.0-rc.3
Affected range stops below 1.1.14, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 1.2.0-rc.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

3.6LOWGitHub_M
Attack Vector
LOCAL
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
REQUIRED
Scope
CHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
LOW
Availability
NONE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-61CWE-363

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card