Skip to content

GHSA-xhjw-95fp-8vgq CVE-2026-41174 GO-2026-5760

Traefik Kubernetes CRD allows unauthorized cross-namespace middleware binding

Medium Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.25%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.95% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-653 Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

There is a vulnerability in Traefik's Kubernetes CRD provider cross-namespace isolation enforcement.

When providers.kubernetesCRD.allowCrossNamespace=false, Traefik correctly rejects direct cross-namespace middleware references from IngressRoute objects, but fails to apply the same restriction to middleware references nested inside a Chain middleware's spec.chain.middlewares[]. An actor with permission to create or update Traefik CRDs in their own namespace can exploit this to cause Traefik to resolve and apply middleware objects from another namespace, bypassing the documented isolation boundary.

Patches

For more information

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

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

Summary

When providers.kubernetesCRD.allowCrossNamespace=false, Traefik still allows a namespace-local Middleware of type Chain to reference middleware objects from another namespace via spec.chain.middlewares[].namespace.

This bypasses the documented cross-namespace restriction and allows an actor with permission to create or update Traefik CRDs in namespace A to bind middleware defined in namespace B to routes in namespace A.

Details

Traefik documents allowCrossNamespace as the control that governs whether IngressRoute objects may reference resources in other namespaces.

Direct middleware references from IngressRoute.routes[].middlewares[] are validated in pkg/provider/kubernetes/crd/kubernetes_http.go by makeMiddlewareKeys(...), which rejects cross-namespace references when allowCrossNamespace is disabled.

However, nested middleware references inside Middleware.spec.chain.middlewares[] follow a different code path. createChainMiddleware(...) in pkg/provider/kubernetes/crd/kubernetes.go does not receive or enforce allowCrossNamespace; it resolves mi.Namespace (or defaults to the current namespace) and appends makeID(ns, mi.Name) unconditionally.

At runtime, pkg/server/middleware/middlewares.go qualifies and builds config.Chain.Middlewares, so the cross-namespace middleware is actually loaded and used.

This was verified on the current master at commit 786f7192e11878dfaa634f8263bf79bb730a71cb.

This appears related to earlier cross-namespace hardening work, but the surviving issue is a distinct nested Chain middleware code path rather than the already-guarded direct reference path.

Expected behavior

When providers.kubernetesCRD.allowCrossNamespace=false, any middleware reference that resolves to an object in another namespace should be rejected, whether referenced directly from an IngressRoute or indirectly through a local Chain middleware.

Actual behavior

A namespace-local Chain middleware can reference spec.chain.middlewares[].namespace in another namespace, and Traefik resolves and applies that middleware even when cross-namespace references are disabled.

Attacker prerequisites

The attacker must have permission to create or update Traefik CRDs in a namespace they control, but does not need permission to modify resources in the target namespace.

PoC

  1. Run Traefik with the Kubernetes CRD provider and set allowCrossNamespace: false.

  2. Create two namespaces, for example default and cross-ns.

  3. Apply a middleware in cross-ns:

apiVersion: traefik.io/v1alpha1
kind: Middleware
metadata:
  name: victim-strip
  namespace: cross-ns
spec:
  stripPrefix:
    prefixes:
      - /secret
  1. Apply a chain middleware in default that references the middleware above:
apiVersion: traefik.io/v1alpha1
kind: Middleware
metadata:
  name: mychain
  namespace: default
spec:
  chain:
    middlewares:
      - name: victim-strip
        namespace: cross-ns
  1. Apply an IngressRoute in default that references only the local mychain middleware:
apiVersion: traefik.io/v1alpha1
kind: IngressRoute
metadata:
  name: demo
  namespace: default
spec:
  entryPoints:
    - web
  routes:
    - match: Host(`example.test`) && PathPrefix(`/demo`)
      kind: Rule
      middlewares:
        - name: mychain
      services:
        - name: whoami
          port: 80
  1. Observe that Traefik accepts the configuration and resolves the resulting chain to the middleware from cross-ns even though allowCrossNamespace is disabled.

  2. As a control, replace the local chain reference in the IngressRoute with a direct cross-namespace middleware reference. That direct reference is rejected when allowCrossNamespace=false, which indicates the bypass is specific to nested Chain middleware resolution.

Impact

This is an authorization / trust-boundary bypass in Traefik's Kubernetes CRD provider.

Clusters that rely on providers.kubernetesCRD.allowCrossNamespace=false for namespace isolation are affected. An actor who is allowed to create or update Traefik CRDs in their own namespace can still cause Traefik to apply middleware from another namespace by referencing it indirectly through a local Chain middleware.

The practical impact depends on which middleware objects exist in the other namespace, but this can allow unauthorized reuse of security-sensitive or policy-bearing middleware across namespace boundaries. Examples include request modification, header manipulation, authentication or forward-auth related behavior, and other traffic-handling policies that were intended to remain namespace-scoped.

Testers have not verified unauthenticated remote compromise, code execution, or universal cross-tenant data exposure. The core issue is that a documented isolation control can be bypassed through the nested Chain middleware reference path.

</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:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

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

CVSS 3.1 6.4

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

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

Weakness

CWE-653: Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization

The product does not properly compartmentalize or isolate functionality, processes, or resources that require different privilege levels, rights, or permissions.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Break up privileges between different modules, objects, or entities. Minimize the interfaces between modules and require strong access control between them.

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

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