GHSA-vxm7-9x8v-8gm4 CVE-2026-46370 GO-2026-5682
Fleet has observer-level enrollment secret extraction via ORDER BY oracle on labels host-listing endpoint
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.37%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.06% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
- CWE-89 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
- Fix
4.84.2- Upgrade github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 to this version or later
Description
Summary
A vulnerability in Fleet's labels host-listing endpoint allowed authenticated users with the lowest-privilege Observer role to extract host enrollment secrets (node_key, orbit_node_key) through a cursor-based binary search oracle. The endpoint accepted a user-supplied order_key parameter that was not validated against a column allowlist, permitting sort order to be driven by sensitive columns in a joined table.
Impact
The GET /api/v1/fleet/labels/{id}/hosts endpoint constructs its query using a deprecated helper that did not restrict which columns could appear in the ORDER BY clause. An attacker with Global Observer or Team Observer credentials could supply a sensitive column name (for example, h.node_key) as order_key and combine it with the cursor-based after parameter to binary-search the values of those columns one character at a time. The targeted values never appeared in the response body, but the presence or absence of results revealed each character.
The node_key and orbit_node_key values are the long-lived shared secrets used by osquery and Orbit agents to authenticate to the Fleet server. An attacker who extracted these keys could:
- Impersonate enrolled hosts to Fleet's osquery and Orbit endpoints
- Submit fabricated query results and host inventory data
- Retrieve pending scripts and MDM commands queued for the host
- Poison compliance and policy results across the Fleet deployment
Exploitation required authenticated Observer access. Fleet deployments that restrict Observer roles to fully trusted users were at lower practical risk, but the secrets exposed are high-value and long-lived.
Patches
- v4.85.0
Workarounds
If an immediate upgrade is not possible, administrators should:
- Restrict the Observer role to fully trusted users until the patch is applied
- Rotate
node_keyandorbit_node_keyfor any host suspected of exposure by re-enrolling the affected hosts
For more information
If there are any questions or comments about this advisory:
Email Fleet at security@fleetdm.com Join #fleet in osquery Slack
Credits
Fleet thanks the Security Team at Palantir Technologies for responsibly reporting this issue.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 | < 4.84.2 |
4.84.2 |
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/fleetdm/fleet/v4 Go → 4.84.2
- go
go get github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4@v4.84.2 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
How to prevent it
- 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 [REF-1482]. For example, consider using persistence layers such as Hibernate or Enterprise Java Beans, which can provide significant protection against SQL injection if used properly.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. Process SQL queries using prepared statements, parameterized queries, or stored procedures. These features should accept parameters or variables and support strong typing. Do not dynamically construct and execute query strings within these features using "exec" or similar functionality, since this may re-introduce the possibility of SQL injection. [REF-867]
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations. Specifically, follow the principle of least privilege when creating user accounts to a SQL database. The database users should only have the minimum privileges necessary to use their account. If the requirements of the system indicate that a user can read and modify their own data, then limit their privileges so they cannot read/write others' data. Use the strictest permissions possible on all database objects, such as execute-only for stored procedures.
- 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.
- Implementation: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88). Instead of building a new implementation, such features may be available in the database or programming language. For example, the Oracle DBMS_ASSERT package can check or enforce that parameters have certain properties that make them less vulnerable to SQL injection. For MySQL, the mysql_real_escape_string() API function is available in both C and PHP.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When constructing SQL query strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing SQL injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent SQL injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, the name "O'Reilly" would likely pass the validation step, since it is a common last name in the English language. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the data
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of SQL Injection, error messages revealing the structure of a SQL query can help attackers tailor successful attack strings.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
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/v4 |
| 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-mxmp-wr3w-rvqx Fleet: IP spoofing allows bypassing API rate limiting | High | Also affects github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 |
| GHSA-9vcr-g537-3w5v Fleet vulnerable to OS command injection in software packages | Critical | 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