VulnerabilityPublished 23 Oct 2026Updated 2 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-110975: Kruize Autotune · CWE-256

Affects autotuneSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-110975· High 7.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High : upgrade to 0.11.2 soon.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 13:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	7.4

Patch: Available – fixed in 0.11.2

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-f9cv-pr2f-46v2

What to do

Upgrade kruize/autotune to 0.11.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubkruize/autotune`pkg:github/kruize/autotune`Other threats	Affected <0.11.2	Fixed in 0.11.2

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade Kruize Autotune to version 0.11.2 or later, which implements a Gson serialization exclusion strategy to prevent authentication secrets from being included in API responses and replaces the permissive CORS policy with a deny-by-default handler. Additionally, review network exposure configurations to limit access to the Autotune REST API. Note that credentials stored in cleartext at rest remain a separate hardening concern and require additional measures beyond this fix.

Description

Kruize Autotune's REST API lacks an authentication layer, exposing sensitive datasource configuration endpoints that return authentication secrets in cleartext. This allows any client with network access to the service to retrieve credentials such as basic-auth passwords, bearer tokens, API keys, and OAuth2 client secrets. The vulnerability is tied to the network exposure of the service, which is often exposed via NodePort, LoadBalancer, or OpenShift Route configurations. The issue was fixed in version 0.11.2 by excluding sensitive fields from API responses and tightening CORS policies. However, credentials remain stored in cleartext at rest, which is a separate concern.

Impact

An attacker with network access to the Kruize Autotune service can retrieve sensitive authentication credentials for configured monitoring datasources. These credentials include basic-auth passwords, bearer tokens, API keys, and OAuth2 client secrets, which can be reused to authenticate to the backing monitoring stack. This leads to a high confidentiality impact as sensitive secrets are exposed. The integrity and availability impacts are not affected. The risk is contingent on the network exposure of the service, which is often externally accessible in typical deployments.

CWE-256Plaintext Storage of a Password (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores a password in plaintext within resources such as memory or files.
Architecture and Design
Avoid storing passwords in easily accessible locations.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing cryptographic hashes of passwords as an alternative to storing in plaintext.
A programmer might attempt to remedy the password management problem by obscuring the password with an encoding function, such as base 64 encoding, but this effort does not adequately protect the password because the encoding can be detected and decoded easily.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.7.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Nov 2026, 13:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-256

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats