How severe is GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc?

GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc affects the following packages: github.com/containerd/containerd/v2 (Go), github.com/containerd/containerd/v2 (Go), github.com/containerd/containerd/v2 (Go). Ecosystems affected: Go.

How do I fix GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc?

Update github.com/containerd/containerd/v2 to 2.1.9 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc in my Go dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/containerd/containerd/v2, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.

Is GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc?

GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.4%, placing it in the 27th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc?

GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc is classified as Improper Input Validation (CWE-20), CWE-863 (CWE-863). These weakness types describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc was published on June 19, 2026 and was last updated on September 10, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐹 Go

Not in CISA KEV

GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc — v2

GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc is a Improper Input Validation vulnerability in github.com/containerd/containerd/v2. A fix is available for github.com/containerd/containerd/v2 — see the affected versions and patch details below.

containerd CRI checkpoint restore CDI annotation smuggling

Also known asCVE-2026-53492GO-2026-5064

Published

Jun 19, 2026

Updated

Sep 10, 2026

Affected

3 pkgs

Patched

3 / 3

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Oct 2, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.4%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs27th percentile — riskier than 27% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

Real-World Exposure

3 pkgs affected

🐹github.com/containerd/containerd/v2🐹github.com/containerd/containerd/v2🐹github.com/containerd/containerd/v2

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Impact

containerd's CRI implementation improperly trusts Container Device Interface (CDI) annotations found within untrusted checkpoint image metadata during container restoration. When restoring a container from a checkpoint, containerd preserves CDI-related annotations from the checkpoint archive rather than relying solely on the pod's create-time specification. This allows a user with pod creation permissions to bypass standard Kubernetes resource allocation and device plugin enforcement, injecting arbitrary CDI edits (such as device nodes and host mounts) into the restored container. Successful exploitation requires that the node has CDI enabled and contains a matching host CDI specification for the requested device; environments where CDI is disabled or lacking sensitive device specifications are not affected.

Patches

This bug has been fixed in the following containerd versions:

2.3.2
2.2.5
2.1.9

Users should update to these versions to resolve the issue. Recreating existing containers restored from untrusted checkpoints may be necessary to remove smuggled configuration.

Workarounds

Users can mitigate this issue by restricting the restoration of containers from untrusted checkpoint images. If Container Device Interface (CDI) capabilities are not utilized on the node, removing or temporarily relocating host CDI specifications from the default directories (/etc/cdi and /var/run/cdi) will eliminate the reachability of this vulnerability.

Credits

The containerd project would like to thank Robert Prast (@robertprast) for responsibly disclosing this issue in accordance with the containerd security policy.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Open an issue in containerd
Email us at [email protected]

To report a security issue in containerd:

Report a new vulnerability
Email us at [email protected]

Affected Packages

3 total 3 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐹Go	`github.com/containerd/containerd/v2`	≥ 2.1.0&&< 2.1.9	2.1.9`go get github.com/containerd/containerd/v2@v2.1.9`
🐹Go	`github.com/containerd/containerd/v2`	≥ 2.2.0&&< 2.2.5	2.2.5`go get github.com/containerd/containerd/v2@v2.2.5`
🐹Go	`github.com/containerd/containerd/v2`	≥ 2.3.0&&< 2.3.2	2.3.2`go get github.com/containerd/containerd/v2@v2.3.2`

Affected Products

1 product · 3 configurations

Application

containerdlinuxfoundation

≥ 2.3.0 && < 2.3.2

range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/containerd/containerd/v2, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update github.com/containerd/containerd/v2 to 2.1.9 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.

Fixing This On Your OS

If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.

Red HatImportant

This flaw is rated as Important. In Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, a user with pod creation permissions could bypass standard Kubernetes resource allocation and device plugin enforcement. This is due to containerd's Container Runtime Interface (CRI) improperly trusting Container Device Interface (CDI)…

Product	Fixed in	Advisory
Multicluster Global Hub 1.4.9	`multicluster-globalhub/multicluster-globalhub-agent-rhel9:1784061472`	RHSA-2026:41030
Multicluster Global Hub 1.5.8	`multicluster-globalhub/multicluster-globalhub-agent-rhel9:1784127491`	RHSA-2026:42852
Multicluster Global Hub 1.6.6	`multicluster-globalhub/multicluster-globalhub-agent-rhel9:1784152046`	RHSA-2026:44622
Multicluster Global Hub 1.7.3	`multicluster-globalhub/multicluster-globalhub-agent-rhel9:1784768332`	RHSA-2026:47149
Multicluster Global Hub 1.7.3	`multicluster-globalhub/multicluster-globalhub-agent-rhel9:1785775948`	RHSA-2026:53530
Multicluster Global Hub 1.8.2	`multicluster-globalhub/multicluster-globalhub-grafana-rhel9:1785443657`	RHSA-2026:52946
OpenShift API for Data Protection 1.3	`oadp/oadp-mustgather-rhel9:1785177359`	RHSA-2026:51033
OpenShift API for Data Protection 1.4	`oadp/oadp-mustgather-rhel9:1786946294`	RHSA-2026:59467

UbuntuCRITICAL

USN-8472-1Ubuntu USN-8473-1Ubuntu

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact containerd's CRI implementation improperly trusts Container Device Interface (CDI) annotations found within untrusted checkpoint image metadata during container restoration. When restoring a container from a checkpoint, containerd preserves CDI-related annotations from the checkpoint archive rather than relying solely on the pod's create-time specification. This allows a user with pod creation permissions to bypass standard Kubernetes resource allocation and device plugin enforcement, injecting arbitrary CDI edits (such as device nodes and host mounts) into the restored container.

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-33vj-92qq-66hc in your dependencies?

Find it across Go, including transitive dependencies.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works