VulnerabilityPublished 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-29773: kubewarden-controller · Incorrect Authorization

Affects kubewarden-controllerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.33.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.33.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 9 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 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 kubewarden-controller and kubewarden/kubewarden-controller to 1.33.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
kubewardenkubewarden-controller	Affected <1.33.0	Fixed in 1.33.0
GitHubkubewarden/kubewarden-controller`pkg:github/kubewarden/kubewarden-controller`Other threats	Affected <1.33.0	Fixed in 1.33.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade kubewarden-controller to version 1.33.0 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed.
Restrict AdmissionPolicy create permissions strictly to trusted administrators; avoid granting these permissions to general users or service accounts.
Audit current RBAC policies to ensure that only necessary principals have AdmissionPolicy creation rights.
Disable or remove usage of deprecated host-callback APIs if possible, or monitor their invocation closely.
Implement Kubernetes audit logging to detect unusual AdmissionPolicy creations or suspicious API calls related to ingresses, namespaces, and services.
Use network segmentation and least privilege principles to limit the impact scope if a policy is maliciously crafted.
Regularly review and rotate credentials and permissions associated with kubewarden-controller to minimize risk exposure.
Educate cluster operators about the risks of granting AdmissionPolicy creation permissions and enforce strict change management processes.

Description

Kubewarden is a policy engine for Kubernetes. Kubewarden cluster operators can grant permissions to users to deploy namespaced AdmissionPolicies and AdmissionPolicyGroups in their Namespaces. One of Kubewarden promises is that configured users can deploy namespaced policies in a safe manner, without privilege escalation. An attacker with privileged "AdmissionPolicy" create permissions (which isn't the default) could make use of 3 deprecated host-callback APIs: kubernetes/ingresses, kubernetes/namespaces, kubernetes/services. The attacker can craft a policy that exercises these deprecated API calls and would allow them read access to Ingresses, Namespaces, and Services resources respectively. This attack is read-only, there is no write capability and no access to Secrets, ConfigMaps, or other resource types beyond these three.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-29773 is unauthorized read access to Kubernetes Ingresses, Namespaces, and Services resources within a namespace. This could allow an attacker with AdmissionPolicy creation privileges to gather information about network routing, namespace configurations, and service endpoints, which may facilitate further reconnaissance or targeted attacks. Although the vulnerability does not allow modification or deletion of resources, nor access to highly sensitive data like Secrets or ConfigMaps, the leakage of cluster topology and configuration details can aid attackers in planning more sophisticated attacks. Organizations relying on kubewarden-controller for policy enforcement may face confidentiality risks if they grant AdmissionPolicy create permissions too broadly. The impact is limited to the namespace scope where the attacker has permissions, reducing the blast radius. Since exploitation requires already elevated permissions, the vulnerability primarily concerns environments with lax role-based access control (RBAC) policies. Overall, the risk is moderate but should not be ignored in sensitive or large-scale Kubernetes deployments.

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 9 Mar 2026, 23:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats