VulnerabilityPublished 26 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-76654: Kubernetes · Link Following

Affects KubernetesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 23:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

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

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 26 Oct 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
KubernetesKubernetes	Affected >=1.34.0 <=1.34.11 >=1.35.0 <=1.35.8 >=1.36.0 <=1.36.4 >=1.37.0 <=1.37.0	Fixed in–
GitHubkubernetes/kubernetes`pkg:github/kubernetes/kubernetes`Other threats	Affected >=1.34.0 <=1.34.11 >=1.35.0 <=1.35.8 >=1.36.0 <=1.36.4 =1.37.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Users should monitor vendor advisories for updates. Until a fix is available, avoid deploying pods with volumeMount subPaths that are symbolic links pointing to network shares, especially on Windows nodes in domain-joined environments. Restrict permissions and pod configurations to limit attacker ability to create such mounts.

Description

An NTLM coercion vulnerability exists on Windows nodes when the subPath supplied in a pod's volumeMounts is set to a symbolic link that points to an attacker-controlled network share. When a kubelet resolves symlinks, it does not reject a target that resolves to a UNC path. As a result, the kubelet will transparently attempt to authenticate to the share using NTLM. This allows an attacker to obtain the NetNTLMv2 hash of the account under which the kubelet is running. An attacker could then attempt to crack the hash to retrieve the corresponding password or relay it to impersonate the node, if the node is domain-joined.

Impact

An attacker who can supply a pod with a volumeMount subPath that is a symlink to a malicious UNC network share can obtain the NetNTLMv2 hash of the kubelet's account. This hash exposure can lead to credential cracking or relay attacks, enabling node impersonation in domain-joined environments. The vulnerability does not directly allow code execution or data modification but compromises credential confidentiality, which can escalate to further attacks.

Summary

This vulnerability arises because the kubelet on Windows nodes does not reject symbolic links in pod volumeMounts that resolve to UNC paths. When the kubelet follows such a symlink, it attempts transparent NTLM authentication to the network share. This leaks the NetNTLMv2 hash of the kubelet's service account, potentially allowing attackers to crack the hash or perform relay attacks to impersonate the node in a domain environment. The flaw is tracked as CWE-59 (Link Following).

CWE-59Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Symlink Attack (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (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 Oct 2026, 22:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-59

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats