汇总 etcd 相关全部产品的 CVE 与安全漏洞情报，包括 CVSS、EPSS、公开时间与漏洞情报数据。
已披露问题常与 路径处理缺陷、缓冲区溢出与内存损坏 相关，可能在 生产负载与软件部署 场景中带来 应用崩溃与内存损坏 等暴露风险。
相关漏洞数据主要来源于公开漏洞披露与安全公告，可用于评估历史漏洞暴露面与修复优先级。
| CVE | 摘要 | 来源 | 最高 CVSS | EPSS % | 公开时间 | 更新时间 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44283 | etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to 3.4.44, 3.5.30, and 3.6.11, a vulnerability in etcd allows read access via PrevKv, or lease attachment in Put requests within transaction operations, to bypass RBAC authorization checks. An authenticated user without sufficient read or lease-related permissions may be able to access unauthorized data or attach leases by invoking transaction operations with these features enabled. This vulnerability is fixed in 3 | [email protected] | 0.0 | 0.22% | 2026-05-14 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-33413 | 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 | [email protected] | 8.8 | 0.25% | 2026-03-26 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-33343 | 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 AP | [email protected] | 0.0 | 0.21% | 2026-03-26 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2022-34038 | 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. | [email protected] | 7.5 | 1.31% | 2023-08-22 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2023-32082 | 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. | [email protected] | 3.1 | 0.74% | 2023-05-11 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2021-28235 | Authentication vulnerability found in Etcd-io v.3.4.10 allows remote attackers to escalate privileges via the debug function. | [email protected] | 9.8 | 1.60% | 2023-04-04 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2020-15113 | 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). | [email protected] | 5.7 | 0.23% | 2020-08-05 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2020-15112 | 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. | [email protected] | 6.5 | 1.26% | 2020-08-05 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2020-15106 | 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. | [email protected] | 6.5 | 1.29% | 2020-08-05 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2018-16886 | 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. | [email protected] | 8.1 | 4.03% | 2019-01-14 | 2026-06-16 |