VulnerabilityPublished 23 Mar 2026Updated 7 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-33211: tektoncd pipeline · Path Traversal

Affects tektoncd pipelineSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.6 Critical · fixed in 1.10.2 : patch tektoncd pipeline as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.6Critical

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.10.2, 1.9.2, 1.6.1 +2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 23 Mar 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
tektoncdpipeline	Affected >=1.10.0 <1.10.2	Fixed in 1.10.2
tektoncdpipeline	Affected >=1.7.0 <1.9.2	Fixed in 1.9.2
tektoncdpipeline	Affected >=1.4.0 <1.6.1	Fixed in 1.6.1
tektoncdpipeline	Affected >=1.1.0 <1.3.3	Fixed in 1.3.3
tektoncdpipeline	Affected >=1.0.0 <1.0.1	Fixed in 1.0.1
GitHubtektoncd/pipeline`pkg:github/tektoncd/pipeline`Other threats	Affected <1.0.1 <1.3.3 <1.6.1 <1.9.2 <1.10.2	Fixed in 1.0.1 1.3.3 1.6.1 1.9.2 1.10.2

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

AI-suggested

Apply the official patches by upgrading to Tekton Pipelines versions 1.0.1, 1.3.3, 1.6.1, 1.9.2, or 1.10.2 or later, which contain fixes for this vulnerability. Additionally, restrict the creation of ResolutionRequests to trusted users and service accounts by implementing strict Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) policies to limit who can create TaskRuns or PipelineRuns that use the git resolver. These measures reduce exposure and prevent unauthorized filesystem access. No other vendor advisories indicate alternative mitigations or that no action is required.

Description

Tekton Pipelines project provides k8s-style resources for declaring CI/CD-style pipelines. Starting in version 1.0.0 and prior to versions 1.0.1, 1.3.3, 1.6.1, 1.9.2, and 1.10.2, the Tekton Pipelines git resolver is vulnerable to path traversal via the `pathInRepo` parameter. A tenant with permission to create `ResolutionRequests` (e.g. by creating `TaskRuns` or `PipelineRuns` that use the git resolver) can read arbitrary files from the resolver pod's filesystem, including ServiceAccount tokens. The file contents are returned base64-encoded in `resolutionrequest.status.data`. Versions 1.0.1, 1.3.3, 1.6.1, 1.9.2, and 1.10.2 contain a patch.

Impact

An attacker with permission to create ResolutionRequests can read any file accessible by the resolver pod, including sensitive cluster secrets such as ServiceAccount tokens. This leads to information disclosure and potential privilege escalation from namespace-level access to cluster-wide access. The vulnerability compromises confidentiality and integrity but does not affect availability. The CVSS score of 9.6 reflects the critical severity of this flaw.

Summary

Tekton Pipelines' git resolver suffers from a CWE-22 path traversal vulnerability (CVE-2026-33211) that allows an authenticated user with permission to create ResolutionRequests (e.g., via TaskRuns or PipelineRuns) to read arbitrary files on the resolver pod's filesystem by manipulating the pathInRepo parameter. This includes sensitive files such as ServiceAccount tokens, enabling potential privilege escalation from namespace to cluster scope. The vulnerability affects versions >=1.0.0 and prior to 1.0.1, 1.3.3, 1.6.1, 1.9.2, and 1.10.2. The issue has been patched in these fixed versions. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 score of 9.6 (critical) with network attack vector, low complexity, low privileges required, no user interaction, and scope change with high confidentiality and integrity impacts but no availability impact. Mitigation includes restricting ResolutionRequest creation to trusted users and applying strict RBAC policies. Vendor advisories from Red Hat confirm the vulnerability and patch availability.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
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…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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 17 Aug 2026, 13:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats