GHSA-4r5r-ccr6-q6f6 CVE-2026-23517 GO-2026-4334
Fleet has an Access Control vulnerability in debug/pprof endpoints
High
Go
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.29%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 21.83% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Summary
A broken access control issue in Fleet allowed authenticated users to access debug and profiling endpoints regardless of role. As a result, low-privilege users could view internal server diagnostics and trigger resource-intensive profiling operations.
Impact
Fleet’s debug/pprof endpoints are accessible to any authenticated user regardless of role, including the lowest-privilege “Observer” role. This allows low-privilege users to access sensitive server internals, including runtime profiling data and in-memory application state, and to trigger CPU-intensive profiling operations that could lead to denial of service.
Patches
- 4.78.3
- 4.77.1
- 4.76.2
- 4.75.2
- 4.53.3
Workarounds
If an immediate upgrade is not possible, users should put the debug/pprof endpoints behind an IP allowlist.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
Email us at security@fleetdm.com Join #fleet in osquery Slack
Credits
We thank @secfox-ai for responsibly reporting this issue.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/fleetdm/fleet | >= 4.78.0, < 4.78.3 |
4.78.3 |
| github.com/fleetdm/fleet | >= 4.77.0, < 4.77.1 |
4.77.1 |
| github.com/fleetdm/fleet | >= 4.76.0, < 4.76.2 |
4.76.2 |
| github.com/fleetdm/fleet | >= 4.75.0, < 4.75.2 |
4.75.2 |
| github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 | < 4.78.3-0.20260112221730-5c030e32a3a9 |
4.78.3-0.20260112221730-5c030e32a3a9 |
| github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 | >= 4.75.0, < 4.75.2>= 4.76.0, < 4.76.2>= 4.77.0, < 4.77.1>= 4.78.0, < 4.78.3 |
4.75.24.76.24.77.14.78.3 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
github.com/fleetdm/fleet Go → 4.78.3
- go
go get github.com/fleetdm/fleet@v4.78.3 && go mod tidy
github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 Go → 4.78.3-0.20260112221730-5c030e32a3a9
- go
go get github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4@v4.78.3-0.20260112221730-5c030e32a3a9 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-rxhg-vcww-2mpw Fleet: ORDER BY column injection on activity list endpoints | Low | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 |
| GHSA-q9c5-pp7m-fm2g Fleet: Unauthenticated download of in-house iOS app binaries via predictable URLs | Medium | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 |
| GO-2026-6264 Fleet: SQL injection in Okta conditional access endpoint allows host-controlled compromise of the Fleet database | High | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet |
| GHSA-88p2-jj8w-j8qg Fleet: Observer-class users can view team enroll secrets and credential-bearing configuration via target search endpoint | Medium | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 |
| GHSA-gm7f-v959-fr2g Fleet DM Vulnerable to Cross-Team Policy Data Exposure via Global Policy Read Endpoint | Medium | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 |
| GHSA-x4qr-qw6h-wvxq Fleet: Observer-level enrollment secret extraction via ORDER BY oracle on Apple MDM commands endpoint | Medium | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 |
| GHSA-vxm7-9x8v-8gm4 Fleet has observer-level enrollment secret extraction via ORDER BY oracle on labels host-listing endpoint | Medium | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 |
| GHSA-mxmp-wr3w-rvqx Fleet: IP spoofing allows bypassing API rate limiting | High | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor