VulnerabilityPublished 7 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-29195: gravitl netmaker · Incorrect Authorization

Affects gravitl netmakerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 1.5.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.5.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Mar 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 30 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 netmaker and gravitl/netmaker to 1.5.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
gravitlnetmaker	Affected <1.5.0	Fixed in 1.5.0
GitHubgravitl/netmaker`pkg:github/gravitl/netmaker`Other threats	Affected <1.5.0	Fixed in 1.5.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately upgrade netmaker to version 1.5.0 or later, where the authorization checks have been corrected. Until upgrading is possible, restrict admin user privileges to only trusted personnel and monitor admin activities closely for suspicious role assignment attempts. Implement strict access controls and audit logging on the user update API endpoint to detect unauthorized privilege escalations. Employ network segmentation and multi-factor authentication (MFA) for admin accounts to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Additionally, conduct regular reviews of user roles and permissions within netmaker to ensure no unauthorized super-admin assignments exist. Consider deploying runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block anomalous API requests attempting to assign super-admin roles. Finally, educate administrators on the risks of privilege escalation and enforce the principle of least privilege in all network management operations.

Description

Netmaker makes networks with WireGuard. Prior to version 1.5.0, the user update handler (PUT /api/users/{username}) lacks validation to prevent an admin-role user from assigning the super-admin role during account updates. While the code correctly blocks an admin from assigning the admin role to another user, it does not include an equivalent check for the super-admin role. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.0.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-29195 is unauthorized privilege escalation within netmaker deployments. An attacker with admin-level access can promote themselves or others to super-admin, gaining unrestricted control over network configurations, user management, and potentially sensitive network traffic routed via WireGuard. This could lead to full compromise of the network infrastructure managed by netmaker, including interception or manipulation of network traffic, disruption of network services, and unauthorized access to connected systems. Organizations relying on netmaker for secure network management face risks of insider threats or compromised admin accounts being leveraged to gain super-admin privileges. The vulnerability undermines the principle of least privilege and could facilitate lateral movement or persistent access within an organization's network. Although exploitation requires existing admin privileges, the ease of privilege escalation and lack of user interaction make this a significant risk. The medium CVSS score reflects the balance between required privileges and the high impact of the escalation. If exploited in critical environments, the consequences could be severe, including data breaches, service outages, and loss of network integrity.

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 14 Mar 2026, 19:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats