Skip to content

GHSA-5m6w-wvh7-57vm CVE-2026-39858 GO-2026-5149

Traefik: Pre-authentication decision bypass due to forwarded alias spoofing

Critical Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.48%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.39% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-290 Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

There is a high severity authentication bypass vulnerability in Traefik's ForwardAuth and snippet-based authentication middleware. Traefik's forwarded-header sanitization logic targets only canonical header names (e.g., X-Forwarded-Proto) and does not strip or normalize alias variants that use underscores instead of dashes (e.g., X_Forwarded_Proto). These unsanitized alias headers are forwarded intact to the authentication backend. When the backend normalizes underscore and dash header forms equivalently, an attacker can inject spoofed trust context — such as a trusted scheme or host — through the alias headers and bypass authentication on protected routes without valid credentials.

Patches

For more information

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory, please open an issue.

<details> <summary>Original Description</summary>

Summary

An authentication bypass arises from chaining two bugs: incomplete forwarded-header sanitization at ingress and overly permissive header forwarding in pre-auth subrequests. While canonical X-Forwarded-* headers are handled, alias variants (e.g., underscore forms) are neither normalized nor stripped consistently. When downstream auth services normalize these headers, attackers can inject trusted context and bypass authentication on protected routes without credentials.

Details

This issue results from the interaction between forwarded-header handling and auth subrequest construction, creating a trust boundary mismatch.

At ingress, Traefik defines a fixed set of canonical forwarded headers (X-Forwarded-Proto, X-Forwarded-For, etc.):

Reference : pkg/middlewares/forwardedheaders/forwarded_header.go#L29-L36

var xHeaders = []string{
	xForwardedProto,
	xForwardedFor,
	xForwardedHost,
	xForwardedPort,

This logic focuses exclusively on canonical header names and does not account for alias forms such as X_Forwarded_Proto. As a result, while standard headers may be sanitized or rewritten, semantically equivalent variants can pass through unchanged.

During ForwardAuth processing, request headers are copied wholesale into the auth subrequest:

Reference : pkg/middlewares/auth/forward.go#L401-L408

utils.CopyHeaders(forwardReq.Header, req.Header)
RemoveConnectionHeaders(forwardReq)
utils.RemoveHeaders(forwardReq.Header, hopHeaders...)

This implementation forwards nearly all client-supplied headers to the auth backend, with filtering limited to hop-by-hop headers. There is no normalization or deduplication between canonical and alias header forms, meaning attacker-controlled headers can reach the auth service intact.

A similar pattern exists in snippet-based auth:

Reference : pkg/middlewares/ingressnginx/snippet/snippet.go#L574-L581

utils.CopyHeaders(forwardReq.Header, req.Header)
RemoveConnectionHeaders(forwardReq)
utils.RemoveHeaders(forwardReq.Header, hopHeaders...)

Again, headers are forwarded without enforcing a consistent trust model or canonicalization.

The vulnerability emerges when the auth backend normalizes header names (e.g., treating X_Forwarded_Proto and X-Forwarded-Proto equivalently). In that case:

  • Traefik sanitizes only canonical headers.
  • Alias headers remain attacker-controlled.
  • The auth service merges or evaluates these aliases during normalization.
  • Trust predicates (e.g., scheme = HTTPS, trusted host) are satisfied using spoofed values.

This allows a single crafted request to simultaneously bypass ingress trust enforcement and satisfy authentication checks, resulting in unauthorized access to protected backends.

PoC

  1. Configure a protected route using ForwardAuth or snippet-based auth, with an auth backend that normalizes header names (underscore ↔ dash).
  2. Send a control request (expected: denied):
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: target.local
User-Agent: poc-control
Connection: close
  1. Send an exploit request with alias headers (expected: allowed):
GET /protected HTTP/1.1
Host: app.example.local
X_Forwarded_Proto: https
X_Forwarded_Host: trusted.example
Connection: close

Impact

This vulnerability allows unauthenticated attackers to bypass authentication at the proxy-to-auth boundary by injecting spoofed trust context through header aliases. In deployments where authorization decisions depend on forwarded headers, attackers can access protected endpoints and interact with backend services as if they were fully authenticated. This effectively undermines ForwardAuth and similar mechanisms, potentially exposing sensitive internal functionality and data.

Suggested Remediation

  1. Strip and regenerate both canonical and alias forms of forwarded headers consistently at ingress and during auth subrequests.
  2. Apply a unified normalization policy across all forwarded header families (including RFC7239 and X-Forwarded-*).
  3. Restrict which headers are forwarded to auth services (prefer explicit allowlists).
  4. Add regression tests covering alias normalization inconsistencies across common backend frameworks.

</details>


Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/traefik/traefik
<= 1.7.34
No fix yet
github.com/traefik/traefik
all versions
No fix yet
github.com/traefik/traefik/v2
< 2.11.43
2.11.43
github.com/traefik/traefik/v3
>= 3.7.0-ea.1, < 3.7.0-rc.2
3.7.0-rc.2
github.com/traefik/traefik/v3
>= 3.0.0-beta1, < 3.6.14
3.6.14
github.com/traefik/traefik/v3
>= 3.0.0-beta1, < 3.6.14
>= 3.7.0-ea.1, < 3.7.0-rc.2
3.6.14
3.7.0-rc.2

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/traefik/traefik/v2 Go → 2.11.43

go
go get github.com/traefik/traefik/v2@v2.11.43 && go mod tidy

github.com/traefik/traefik/v3 Go → 3.7.0-rc.2

go
go get github.com/traefik/traefik/v3@v3.7.0-rc.2 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 10.0

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GO-2026-6558
Traefik: BasicAuth singleflight coalescing reintroduces an unauthenticated username-enumeration timing oracle
Medium Also affects github.com/traefik/traefik
GHSA-f52w-8j3h-j724
Traefik: Rootless HTTP/1 request-target routes as "/" but is forwarded verbatim, bypassing path-scoped routing, middleware guards and access logging
High Also affects github.com/traefik/traefik
GHSA-w4v4-9rw7-5326
Traefik: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') and Incorrect Authorization
Critical Also affects github.com/traefik/traefik
GHSA-qqjf-53cj-pwvv
Traefik HTTP/3 Backend NTLM Connection Reuse
Critical Also affects github.com/traefik/traefik
GO-2026-6467
Traefik entrypoint header-name sanitization bypassed via request trailers
High Also affects github.com/traefik/traefik
GHSA-rf44-j88r-hh8c
Traefik: ForwardAuth identity spoofing via dot-form header alias
High Also affects github.com/traefik/traefik
GHSA-7ghq-v6jf-g56c
Traefik: respondingTimeouts.readTimeout is not applied to HTTP/3, leaving slow-body uploads unbounded
Medium Also affects github.com/traefik/traefik
GHSA-62fc-8686-hfmq
Traefik: `allowCrossNamespace=false` bypass via `@kubernetescrd` TraefikService backendRef
Medium Also affects github.com/traefik/traefik
Is this in your code?

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