Focus on etcd vulnerabilities and metrics.
Last updated: 16 Apr 2026, 22:25 UTC
This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with etcd. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.
For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.
Total etcd CVEs: 9
Earliest CVE date: 14 Jan 2019, 19:29 UTC
Latest CVE date: 26 Mar 2026, 14:16 UTC
Latest CVE reference: CVE-2026-33413
30-day Count (Rolling): 2
365-day Count (Rolling): 2
Calendar-based Variation
Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.
Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 0%
Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 0.0%
Average CVSS: 2.04
Max CVSS: 6.8
Critical CVEs (≥9): 0
| Range | Count |
|---|---|
| 0.0-3.9 | 6 |
| 4.0-6.9 | 3 |
| 7.0-8.9 | 0 |
| 9.0-10.0 | 0 |
These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for etcd, sorted by severity first and recency.
etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.42, 3.5.28, and 3.6.9, unauthorized users may bypass authentication or authorization checks and call certain etcd functions in clusters that expose the gRPC API to untrusted or partially trusted clients. In unpatched etcd clusters with etcd auth enabled, unauthorized users are able to call MemberList and learn cluster topology, including member IDs and advertised endpoints; call Alarm, which can be abused for operational disruption or denial of service; use Lease APIs, interfering with TTL-based keys and lease ownership; and/or trigger compaction, permanently removing historical revisions and disrupting watch, audit, and recovery workflows. Kubernetes does not rely on etcd’s built-in authentication and authorization. Instead, the API server handles authentication and authorization itself, so typical Kubernetes deployments are not affected. Versions 3.4.42, 3.5.28, and 3.6.9 contain a patch. If upgrading is not immediately possible, reduce exposure by treating the affected RPCs as unauthenticated in practice. Restrict network access to etcd server ports so only trusted components can connect and/or require strong client identity at the transport layer, such as mTLS with tightly scoped client certificate distribution.
etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.42, 3.5.28, and 3.6.9, an authenticated user with RBAC restricted permissions on key ranges can use nested transactions to bypass all key-level authorization. This allows any authenticated user with direct access to etcd to effectively ignore all key range restrictions, accessing the entire etcd data store. Kubernetes does not rely on etcd’s built-in authentication and authorization. Instead, the API server handles authentication and authorization itself, so typical Kubernetes deployments are not affected. Versions 3.4.42, 3.5.28, and 3.6.9 contain a patch. If upgrading is not immediately possible, reduce exposure by treating the affected RPCs as unauthenticated in practice. Restrict network access to etcd server ports so only trusted components can connect and require strong client identity at the transport layer, such as mTLS with tightly scoped client certificate distribution.
Etcd v3.5.4 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via function PageWriter.write in pagewriter.go. NOTE: the vendor's position is that this is not a vulnerability.
etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.4.26 and 3.5.9, the LeaseTimeToLive API allows access to key names (not value) associated to a lease when `Keys` parameter is true, even a user doesn't have read permission to the keys. The impact is limited to a cluster which enables auth (RBAC). Versions 3.4.26 and 3.5.9 fix this issue. There are no known workarounds.
Authentication vulnerability found in Etcd-io v.3.4.10 allows remote attackers to escalate privileges via the debug function.
In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, certain directory paths are created (etcd data directory and the directory path when provided to automatically generate self-signed certificates for TLS connections with clients) with restricted access permissions (700) by using the os.MkdirAll. This function does not perform any permission checks when a given directory path exists already. A possible workaround is to ensure the directories have the desired permission (700).
In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the number of entries in the ReadAll method in wal/wal.go. This could cause issues when WAL entries are being read during consensus as an arbitrary etcd consensus participant could go down from a runtime panic when reading the entry.
In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, a large slice causes panic in decodeRecord method. The size of a record is stored in the length field of a WAL file and no additional validation is done on this data. Therefore, it is possible to forge an extremely large frame size that can unintentionally panic at the expense of any RAFT participant trying to decode the WAL.
etcd versions 3.2.x before 3.2.26 and 3.3.x before 3.3.11 are vulnerable to an improper authentication issue when role-based access control (RBAC) is used and client-cert-auth is enabled. If an etcd client server TLS certificate contains a Common Name (CN) which matches a valid RBAC username, a remote attacker may authenticate as that user with any valid (trusted) client certificate in a REST API request to the gRPC-gateway.