Vulnerability Database

413,830

Total vulnerabilities in the database

cert-manager ha a potential slowdown / DoS when parsing specially crafted PEM inputs — github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager

Impact

cert-manager packages which call the standard library pem.Decode() function can take a long time to process specially crafted invalid PEM data.

If an attacker is able to modify PEM data which cert-manager reads (e.g. in a Secret resource), they may be able to use large amounts of CPU in the cert-manager controller pod to effectively create a denial-of-service (DoS) vector for cert-manager in the cluster.

Secrets are limited in size to 1MiB, which reduces the impact of this issue; it was discovered through an ~856kB fuzz test input which causes pem.Decode to take roughly 750ms to reject the input on an M2 Max Macbook Pro. By way of comparison, a valid PEM-encoded 4096-bit RSA key takes roughly 70µs to parse on the same machine.

Given the required size of PEM data needed to present a realistic DoS vector, an attacker would need to create or insert many different large sized resources in the cluster, and so the best secondary defense is to ensure that sensible limits are placed via RBAC.

This issue affects all versions of cert-manager to have been released since at least v0.1.0 (since pem.Decode is core functionality for cert-manager). All supported releases are patched.

Patches

The fixed versions are v1.16.2, v1.15.4 and v1.12.14.

  • master branch: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/7400
  • release-1.16 branch: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/7401
  • release-1.15 branch: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/7402
  • release-1.12 branch: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/7403

Workarounds

Ensure that RBAC is scoped correctly in your cluster. If a user is able to modify resources containing PEM data to be able to exploit this, it's like that those permissions are a bigger security threat than this issue - especially for Secret resources.

References

  • Upstream issue: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/50116
  • Similar issue: https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore/issues/198
  • Google OSSFuzz: https://issues.oss-fuzz.com/issues/376728466
  • Published: Nov 20, 2024
  • Updated: Jun 5, 2026
  • GHSA: GHSA-r4pg-vg54-wxx4
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

No technical information available.

No CWE or OWASP classifications available.

Is cert-manager exposed on your perimeter?

A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.

What is attack surface management? →

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.