VulnerabilityPublished 28 May 2026Updated 30 May 2026

CVE-2026-44543: rancher local-path-provisioner · Improper Privilege Management

Affects rancher local-path-provisionerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 0.0.36 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.0.36

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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 28 May 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 local-path-provisioner and rancher/local-path-provisioner to 0.0.36.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
rancherlocal-path-provisioner	Affected <0.0.36	Fixed in 0.0.36
GitHubrancher/local-path-provisioner`pkg:github/rancher/local-path-provisioner`Other threats	Affected <0.0.36	Fixed in 0.0.36

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in local-path-provisioner version 0.0.36. Users should upgrade to version 0.0.36 or later to remediate this issue. Restricting edit permissions on the local-path-config ConfigMap can reduce risk but does not fully mitigate the vulnerability. Patch status is not explicitly stated beyond the fix in version 0.0.36, so verify with vendor advisories for the latest remediation guidance.

Description

Local Path Provisioner provides a way for the Kubernetes users to utilize the local storage in each node. Prior to 0.0.36, a malicious user with permission to edit the local-path-config ConfigMap in the local-path-storage namespace can manipulate the helperPod.yaml template used by rancher/local-path-provisioner. The helperPod.yaml template is loaded by the provisioner and used to create HelperPods during PVC provisioning and cleanup operations. However, the template is not sufficiently validated before use. Security-sensitive fields such as securityContext.privileged, hostPath volumes, and Linux capabilities can be injected into the template. When a PVC operation triggers HelperPod creation, the provisioner creates the HelperPod using the attacker-controlled template. This can result in a privileged pod running on the target node with the host root filesystem mounted. This may allow the attacker to access sensitive host files, read ServiceAccount tokens from other pods on the same node, access other tenants' local-path volume data, or modify files on the host node. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.0.36.

Impact

Exploitation allows an attacker with ConfigMap edit permissions to escalate privileges by running privileged pods on the host node with access to the host root filesystem. This can lead to unauthorized reading of sensitive host files, ServiceAccount tokens from other pods, access to other tenants' local-path volume data, and modification of host files. The impact affects confidentiality and integrity of the host and multi-tenant data on the node. Availability impact is not indicated.

Summary

The local-path-provisioner component in rancher Kubernetes environments uses a helperPod.yaml template to create HelperPods for PVC provisioning and cleanup. Before version 0.0.36, this template could be manipulated by users with edit permissions on the local-path-config ConfigMap in the local-path-storage namespace. Because the template is insufficiently validated, attackers can inject security-sensitive fields such as privileged securityContext, hostPath volumes, and Linux capabilities. When the provisioner creates HelperPods from this attacker-controlled template, it results in privileged pods with host root filesystem mounts, compromising node security and tenant isolation. This vulnerability is tracked as CWE-269 (Improper Privilege Management) and has a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.7 (high severity).

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that 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
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
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)
Secure Design Principles (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
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/rancher/local-path-provisioner/security/advisories/GHSA-7fxv-8wr2-mfc4 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jun 2026, 20:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats