CVE-2026-33726

Cilium L7 proxy may bypass Kubernetes NetworkPolicy for same-node traffic

MEDIUM
4.3
CVSS Score
Published: March 27, 2026 at 12:23 AM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 10:37 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorCilium

Using cilium by cilium?

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

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM4.3
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.3%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. Prior to versions 1.17.14, 1.18.8, and 1.19.2, Ingress Network Policies are not enforced for traffic from pods to L7 Services (Envoy, GAMMA) with a local backend on the same node, when Per-Endpoint Routing is enabled and BPF Host Routing is disabled. Per-Endpoint Routing is disabled by default, but is automatically enabled in deployments using cloud IPAM, including Cilium ENI on EKS (`eni.enabled`), AlibabaCloud ENI (`alibabacloud.enabled`), Azure IPAM (`azure.enabled`, but not AKS BYOCNI), and some GKE deployments (`gke.enabled`; managed offerings such as GKE Dataplane V2 may use different defaults). It is typically not enabled in tunneled deployments, and chaining deployments are not affected. In practice, Amazon EKS with Cilium ENI mode is likely the most common affected environment. Versions 1.17.14, 1.18.8, and 1.19.2 contain a patch. There is currently no officially verified or comprehensive workaround for this issue. The only option would be to disable per-endpoint routes, but this will likely cause disruptions to ongoing connections, and potential conflicts if running in cloud providers.

Affected

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

v < 1.17.14v < 1.18.8v < 1.19.21.18.0 ≤ v < 1.18.81.19.0 ≤ v < 1.19.2
Affected range stops below 1.17.14, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 1.18.8, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 1.19.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

References (6)

x_refsource_CONFIRMPatchVendor Advisory
Source: cverecord
https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-hxv8-4j4r-cqgv
x_refsource_MISCIssue TrackingPatch
Source: cverecord
https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/44693
x_refsource_MISCTechnical Description
Source: cverecord
https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/network/concepts/routing/#routing
x_refsource_MISCTechnical Description
Source: cverecord
https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/network/kubernetes/policy/#network-policy
x_refsource_MISCTechnical Description
Source: cverecord
https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/network/servicemesh/l7-traffic-management
x_refsource_MISCTechnical Description
Source: cverecord
https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/operations/performance/tuning/#ebpf-host-routing

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

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

CVSS

Attack Vector
ADJACENT_NETWORK
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
LOW
Availability
NONE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-284CWE-863

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