CVE-2026-24470VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-24470: zalando skipper · Confused Deputy

Affects zalando skipperSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 0.24.0 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.24.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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 26 Jan 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 2026-10-25.

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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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 skipper and github.com/zalando/skipper to 0.24.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
zalandoskipper	Affected <0.24.0	Fixed in 0.24.0
Gogithub.com/zalando/skipper`pkg:golang/github.com/zalando/skipper`Other threats	Affected <0.24.0	Fixed in 0.24.0

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade Skipper to version 0.24.0 or later to benefit from the default disabling of ExternalName Services. Until the upgrade is applied, administrators should implement strict allow-listing of ExternalName targets using Skipper’s configuration options, employing regular expressions to tightly control which external services can be referenced. Kubernetes Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) policies should be reviewed and tightened to restrict permissions for creating Ingress and ExternalName Service resources only to trusted users and service accounts. Network segmentation and firewall rules should be enforced to limit Skipper’s outbound network access where possible. Continuous monitoring and auditing of Kubernetes resource creation events can help detect unauthorized attempts to create potentially malicious Ingress or ExternalName Services. Additionally, organizations should consider deploying runtime security tools that monitor and alert on anomalous proxying behavior within the cluster. Finally, educating DevOps and security teams about this vulnerability will help ensure rapid detection and response.

Description

CVE-2026-24470 is a high-severity vulnerability in Zalando's Skipper HTTP router and reverse proxy, versions prior to 0.24.0. When used as a Kubernetes Ingress controller, it allows users with permissions to create Ingress and ExternalName Services to route traffic through Skipper to internal services, effectively bypassing network restrictions. This unintended proxy or 'confused deputy' flaw can lead to high confidentiality and integrity impacts without requiring user interaction. The vulnerability is mitigated in version 0.24.0 by disabling ExternalName Services by default and can be further controlled by allow-listing targets. European organizations using Skipper in Kubernetes environments should prioritize upgrading and applying strict allow-listing to prevent unauthorized internal access. Countries with strong Kubernetes adoption and critical cloud-native infrastructure, such as Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands, are most likely to be affected.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those leveraging Kubernetes and cloud-native architectures with Skipper as an Ingress controller, this vulnerability poses a serious risk. Attackers with limited Kubernetes permissions can pivot through Skipper to access internal services that are otherwise protected by network segmentation, potentially leading to data breaches, unauthorized data manipulation, or lateral movement within the network. This can compromise sensitive business data, intellectual property, or customer information, violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. The confidentiality and integrity of internal services are at high risk, while availability is not directly impacted. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, which rely heavily on Kubernetes for scalable service deployment, are particularly vulnerable. The ability to exploit this vulnerability without user interaction and with low privilege requirements increases the likelihood of exploitation in multi-tenant or shared Kubernetes environments common in European cloud providers.

CWE-441Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor.
Architecture and Design
Enforce the use of strong mutual authentication mechanism between the two parties.
Architecture and Design
Whenever a product is an intermediary or proxy for transactions between two other components, the proxy core should not drop the identity of the initiator of the transaction. The immutability of the identity of the initiator must be maintained and should be forwarded all the way to the target.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Routing Detour Attacks (opens in a new tab)
Transparent Proxy Abuse (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (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 3 Feb 2026, 08:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-441, CWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats