VulnerabilityPublished 18 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32692: Canonical Juju · Improper Authorization

Affects Canonical JujuSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High : upgrade to 3.6.19 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 20:25 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.6.19

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

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

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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 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 Juju and juju to 3.6.19.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
CanonicalJuju	Affected >=3.1.6 <3.6.19	Fixed in 3.6.19
GitHubjuju/juju`pkg:github/juju/juju`Other threats	Affected =3.1.6	Fixed in–
GitHubjuju`pkg:github/juju`Other threats	Affected >=3.1.6 <3.6.19	Fixed in 3.6.19

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-32692, organizations should prioritize upgrading Juju to a version where this vulnerability is patched once Canonical releases an update. In the interim, restrict access to unit agents by enforcing strict authentication and authorization policies, limiting the number of users and services with unit agent privileges. Implement network segmentation and access controls to reduce the attack surface for authenticated agents. Monitor logs and audit trails for unusual secret update activities or unauthorized access attempts. Employ defense-in-depth by using external secret management solutions with robust authorization controls as an additional layer. Conduct regular security reviews of Juju configurations and secrets management practices. If possible, rotate secrets that may have been exposed or altered to invalidate any poisoned revisions. Educate administrators and operators about the risks of this vulnerability and the importance of controlling authenticated access. Finally, stay informed about Canonical’s advisories for patches and apply them promptly upon release.

Description

An authorization bypass vulnerability in the Vault secrets back-end implementation of Juju versions 3.1.6 through 3.6.18 allows an authenticated unit agent to perform unauthorized updates to secret revisions. With sufficient information, an attacker can poison any existing secret revision within the scope of that Vault secret back-end.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-32692 is the unauthorized modification of secret revisions within Juju-managed environments. This can lead to the injection of malicious secrets or alteration of existing ones, undermining the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data such as credentials, API keys, or encryption keys. Organizations relying on Juju for cloud orchestration and secret management may face risks including unauthorized access to protected resources, data breaches, and disruption of service integrity. The vulnerability could facilitate lateral movement within compromised environments if attackers leverage poisoned secrets to escalate privileges or access additional systems. Although availability impact is rated low, the integrity compromise can have cascading effects on trust and operational security. The requirement for authenticated access limits exposure but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with multiple users or automated agents. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat but does not preclude future exploitation, especially given the high value of secrets in cloud infrastructure. Overall, the vulnerability poses a significant risk to organizations using affected Juju versions, particularly those managing sensitive or critical workloads.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/juju/juju/security/advisories/GHSA-89x7-5m5m-mcmm (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Mar 2026, 13:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats