How severe is GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc?

GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc has a CVSS score of 5.3/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc?

GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc affects the following packages: github.com/Azure/aad-pod-identity (Go). Ecosystems affected: Go.

How do I fix GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc?

Update github.com/Azure/aad-pod-identity to 1.8.13 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc in my Go dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/Azure/aad-pod-identity. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

How do I mitigate GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

How does O3 Security protect against GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Is GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc 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-p82q-rxpm-hjpc?

GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.7%, placing it in the 49th 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.

When was GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc was published on December 21, 2022 and was last updated on August 21, 2024. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐹 Go

GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc

MEDIUM

AAD Pod Identity obtaining token with backslash

Also known asCVE-2022-23551GO-2022-1181

Published

Dec 21, 2022

Updated

Aug 21, 2024

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.7%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk49th percentile-0.07%

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected

🐹github.com/Azure/aad-pod-identity

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

What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted? The NMI component in AAD Pod Identity intercepts and validates token requests based on regex. In this case, a token request made with backslash in the request (example: /metadata/identity\oauth2\token/) would bypass the NMI validation and be sent to IMDS allowing a pod in the cluster to access identities that it shouldn't have access to.

Patches

Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?

We analyzed this bug and determined that we needed to fix it. This fix has been included in AAD Pod Identity release v1.8.13
If using the AKS pod-managed identities add-on, no action is required. The clusters should now be running the v1.8.13 release.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Open an issue in Azure/aad-pod-identity

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐹Go	`github.com/Azure/aad-pod-identity`	all versions	1.8.13

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/Azure/aad-pod-identity. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update github.com/Azure/aad-pod-identity to 1.8.13 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ The [NMI](https://azure.github.io/aad-pod-identity/docs/concepts/nmi/) component in AAD Pod Identity intercepts and validates token requests based on regex. In this case, a token request made with backslash in the request (example: `/metadata/identity\oauth2\token/`) would bypass the NMI validation and be sent to [IMDS](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/instance-metadata-service?tabs=windows) allowing a pod in the cluster to access identities that it shouldn't have access to. ### Patches _Has the pr

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-p82q-rxpm-hjpc across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works