Skip to content

GHSA-mwr2-wmgp-crj6 BIT-openbao-2026-55775 CVE-2026-55775 GO-2026-5517

OpenBao's System Backend allows Unauthorized Management of the containing Namespace

Low Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Low · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.48%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.69% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-285 Improper Authorization
Fix
0.0.0-20260617103935-d3c1cc64b1ae
Upgrade github.com/openbao/openbao to this version or later

Description

Summary

A user that is granted namespace management (/sys/namespaces) capabilities within a non-root namespace ("the victim namespace") can abuse special handling of the literal path "root" in namespace path canonicalization to manage the victim namespace itself.

Details

Several endpoints under /sys/namespaces/* accept a namespace path segment that is canonicalized and then appended to the path of the sys mount's containing namespace (set via path prefix or X-Vault-Namespace header) to determine the absolute path of the namespace to operate on.

Given the special namespace path "root" canonicalizes to en empty path (""), when passed as /sys/namespaces/root, the resulting absolute namespace path remains equal to the sys mount's containing namespace. Given ACLs are evaluated before namespace path canonicalization, this allows users with capabilities on /sys/namespaces/root within any given namespace to operate on the namespace itself instead.

Impact

Users that were granted the required capabilities can abuse this vulnerability to:

  • Look up
  • Delete
  • Lock
  • Patch custom metadata

against the namespace containing the system backend they can manage sys/namespaces/root in. The exact range of operations that can be performed depends on the specific capabilities granted on said path and any sub-paths such as /api-lock.

Notably, the root namespace is immutable and cannot be modified, deleted or locked, and is thus unaffected. Also note that users can only abuse this vulnerability to operate on the direct parent or "containing" namespace relative to their capabilities, not arbitrary namespaces.

Patch

This will be fixed in OpenBao v2.5.5.

PoC

Start a development server:

bao server -dev

Create a namespace:

bao namespace create victim

This will be the namespace we gain unauthorized management of.

Create a policy that allows management of namespaces, inside of the victim namespace.

bao policy write -namespace=victim namespace-management - <<EOF
path "sys/namespaces/*" {
	capabilities = ["read", "update", "patch", "delete"]
}
EOF

Then create a token with above policy attached:

export BAO_TOKEN=$(bao token create -namespace=victim -policy=namespace-management -field=token)

Operate on the victim's namespace using the token, for example by outright deleting it:

bao namespace delete -namespace=victim root

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/openbao/openbao
< 0.0.0-20260617103935-d3c1cc64b1ae
0.0.0-20260617103935-d3c1cc64b1ae
github.com/openbao/openbao
>= 0.1.0, <= 2.5.4
No fix yet
github.com/openbao/openbao
< 0.0.0-20260617103935-d3c1cc64b1ae
>= 0.1.0
0.0.0-20260617103935-d3c1cc64b1ae

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/openbao/openbao Go → 0.0.0-20260617103935-d3c1cc64b1ae

go
go get github.com/openbao/openbao@v0.0.0-20260617103935-d3c1cc64b1ae && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

Weakness

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
  • 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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-xp3c-3jw3-4vcr
OpenBao Skips Stricter Deny Policy for LIST operations
Medium Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-34fc-gh42-pj53
OpenBao's Recovery Mode Vulnerable To Token Leakage via Timing Attack
Critical Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-444v-8vxr-p36h
OpenBao Agent Writes Secrets to Stdout
Low Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-59w7-v8rr-pr4p
OpenBao's Templated Policies Allow Privilege Escalation via Wildcard Characters
High Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-8w8f-r2xv-4q4j
OpenBao: Transit secrets engine crashes on key creation with `derived: true` for asymmetric key types
Medium Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-c36x-h252-g9x2
OpenBao: Cross-namespace lease revocation/renewal via canonical sys/leases/{revoke,renew} — incomplete fix of CVE-2026-45808
Low Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-6mwx-4547-5vc9
OpenBao: LDAPi ldaputil (wrong escape func)
Medium Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
GHSA-7j6w-vvw2-5f9c
OpenBao's Kerberos Auth Method Accumulates Unaccessible Tokens
Medium Also affects github.com/openbao/openbao
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