VulnerabilityPublished 18 Mar 2026Updated 20 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32737: ctfer-io romeo · Improper Access Control

Affects ctfer-io romeoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.9 High : upgrade to 0.2.1 soon.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 08:20 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.9High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.2.1

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Subsequent 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 Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 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 romeo and github.com/ctfer-io/romeo to 0.2.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ctfer-ioromeo	Affected <0.2.1	Fixed in 0.2.1
Gogithub.com/ctfer-io/romeo`pkg:golang/github.com/ctfer-io/romeo`Other threats	Affected <0.2.1	Fixed in 0.2.1

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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade romeo to version 0.2.1 or later, which removes the vulnerable inter-ns NetworkPolicy. If upgrading is not immediately possible, administrators should manually identify and delete any NetworkPolicy resources prefixed with 'inter-ns-' in the affected namespaces to restore proper network isolation. Additionally, organizations should audit their Kubernetes NetworkPolicies to ensure they enforce strict namespace isolation and verify that no unintended network access is permitted between namespaces. Implementing network segmentation monitoring and anomaly detection can help identify suspicious lateral movement attempts. Regularly reviewing CI/CD pipeline tools and their network configurations is recommended to prevent similar misconfigurations. Finally, applying the principle of least privilege to Pod permissions and restricting access to the Kubernetes API can reduce the risk of exploitation.

Description

Romeo gives the capability to reach high code coverage of Go ≥1.20 apps by helping to measure code coverage for functional and integration tests within GitHub Actions. Prior to version 0.2.1, due to a mis-written NetworkPolicy, a malicious actor can pivot from the "hardened" namespace to any Pod out of it. This breaks the security-by-default property expected as part of the deployment program, leading to a potential lateral movement. Removing the `inter-ns` NetworkPolicy patches the vulnerability in version 0.2.1. If updates are not possible in production environments, manually delete `inter-ns` and update as soon as possible. Given one's context, delete the failing network policy that should be prefixed by `inter-ns-` in the target namespace.

Impact

This vulnerability enables an attacker who gains access to a Pod within a hardened namespace to bypass Kubernetes network segmentation controls and move laterally to Pods in other namespaces. Such lateral movement can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive workloads, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and potential cluster-wide compromise. Organizations relying on romeo for code coverage in CI/CD pipelines may inadvertently expose their Kubernetes clusters to increased risk if they use vulnerable versions. The breach of namespace isolation undermines multi-tenant security models and can facilitate advanced persistent threats within cloud-native environments. The impact is particularly severe in environments with sensitive or regulated data, where lateral movement can lead to compliance violations and significant operational disruption. Although no active exploits are known, the ease of exploitation and network accessibility make this a critical risk to address promptly.

Summary

CVE-2026-32737 is an improper access control vulnerability (CWE-284) found in ctfer-io's romeo tool, which assists in measuring code coverage for Go applications (version 1.20 and above) within GitHub Actions workflows. Romeo versions prior to 0.2.1 include a mis-written Kubernetes NetworkPolicy named with the prefix 'inter-ns' that was intended to enforce namespace isolation by restricting network traffic between Pods in different namespaces. However, due to the misconfiguration, this NetworkPolicy inadvertently allows Pods in a supposedly hardened namespace to communicate with Pods outside that namespace. This breaks the security-by-default principle expected in Kubernetes deployments, enabling an attacker who has compromised a Pod in the hardened namespace to pivot laterally to other Pods across namespaces. The vulnerability does not require any privileges, authentication, or user interaction, and can be exploited remotely over the network. The scope of impact is high because it undermines Kubernetes namespace isolation, a fundamental security boundary. The vulnerability was addressed in romeo version 0.2.1 by removing the problematic inter-ns NetworkPolicy. For environments where immediate upgrade is not feasible, manual deletion of the inter-ns NetworkPolicy in the affected namespaces is advised to mitigate the risk. No known exploits are reported in the wild as of the publication date. The CVSS v4.0 base score is 7.9 (high), reflecting the network attack vector, no required privileges or user interaction, and the significant impact on security isolation within Kubernetes clusters.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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 26 Mar 2026, 01:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats