CVE-2026-62290VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager · cert-manager: Direct ACME Challenge resources can bypass Issuer DNS01 solver policy and use ClusterIssuer DNS

Affects github.com/cert-manager/cert-managerSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High : upgrade to 1.19.6 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.19.6, 1.20.3

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 29 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 29 Oct 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.

What to do

Upgrade github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager to 1.19.6; github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager to 1.20.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/cert-manager/cert-manager	Affected >=1.18.0 <1.19.6	Fixed in 1.19.6
Gogithub.com/cert-manager/cert-manager	Affected >=1.20.0-alpha.0 <1.20.3	Fixed in 1.20.3

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in cert-manager versions 1.19.6 and 1.20.3. Users should upgrade to these or later versions to address this vulnerability. Until upgraded, restrict permissions to create challenges.acme.cert-manager.io resources to trusted users only. Review and tighten RBAC roles to prevent untrusted namespace users from creating Challenge resources directly. Monitor cert-manager advisories for additional guidance.

Description

cert-manager versions prior to 1.19.6 and 1.20.3 allow namespace users with permission to create ACME Challenge resources to bypass Issuer and ClusterIssuer DNS01 solver policies. This occurs because the controller accepts attacker-controlled DNS provider configurations from Challenge.spec.solver without validating ownership or solver restrictions. This can lead to unauthorized use of DNS credentials or credential disclosure, particularly with acme-dns providers.

Impact

An attacker with namespace-level permission to create ACME Challenge resources can bypass Issuer and ClusterIssuer DNS01 solver policies, leading to unauthorized use of DNS credentials or ambient cloud credentials. Specifically, with acme-dns providers, this can result in credential disclosure to attacker-controlled endpoints. For other DNS providers, the impact includes unauthorized DNS mutations and policy bypass. This compromises the security boundary intended by Issuer/ClusterIssuer configurations and can affect multi-tenant Kubernetes clusters where namespace users are separated from platform credential administration.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
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.
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.
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.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 29 Oct 2026, 17:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats