CVE-2026-26055VulnerabilityPublished 12 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-26055: yokecd yoke · Missing Authentication

Affects yokecd yokeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 12 Feb 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
yokecdyoke	Affected <=0.19.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their Kubernetes clusters for Yoke usage and verify the version in deployment. Upgrading Yoke to a version later than 0.19.0, once available, is the primary mitigation step. Until a patch is released, organizations should implement network segmentation within the cluster to restrict pod-to-pod communication, especially limiting access to the ATC webhook endpoints. Employ Kubernetes Network Policies to enforce strict ingress rules that only allow trusted pods or namespaces to communicate with the ATC component. Additionally, consider deploying admission controllers or service meshes that can enforce authentication and authorization on internal webhook calls. Monitoring and logging AdmissionReview requests to the ATC webhook can help detect anomalous or unauthorized access attempts. Finally, review and harden the cluster's overall security posture, including pod security policies and least privilege principles, to reduce the risk of pod compromise that could lead to exploitation.

Description

Yoke is a Helm-inspired infrastructure-as-code (IaC) package deployer. In 0.19.0 and earlier, a vulnerability exists in the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) component of Yoke. The ATC webhook endpoints lack proper authentication mechanisms, allowing any pod within the cluster network to directly send AdmissionReview requests to the webhook, bypassing Kubernetes API Server authentication. This enables attackers to trigger WASM module execution in the ATC controller context without proper authorization.

Impact

For European organizations deploying Kubernetes clusters with Yoke versions 0.19.0 or earlier, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of their infrastructure-as-code deployments. An attacker who gains control of any pod within the cluster network can exploit this flaw to execute unauthorized WASM modules in the ATC controller context, potentially altering deployment configurations or injecting malicious code. This can lead to compromised application behavior, unauthorized infrastructure changes, and a loss of trust in automated deployment pipelines. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the integrity breach can cascade into broader security incidents, including privilege escalation or lateral movement within the cluster. Organizations in sectors with strict compliance requirements (e.g., finance, healthcare, critical infrastructure) may face regulatory and reputational risks if such unauthorized modifications occur. The lack of required privileges or user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the threat level in multi-tenant or shared Kubernetes environments common in European enterprises.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/yokecd/yoke/security/advisories/GHSA-965m-v4cc-6334 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Feb 2026, 22:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats