CVE-2026-49478VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jun 2026

github.com/sigstore/fulcio · Fulcio has OIDC Discovery Redirect Following Allows SSRF and JWKS Substitution for Meta-Issuer Paths, with Kubernetes

Affects github.com/sigstore/fulcioSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-49478· High 8.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 1.8.6 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: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.8.6

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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 13 Aug 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 github.com/sigstore/fulcio to 1.8.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/sigstore/fulcio	Affected <1.8.6	Fixed in 1.8.6

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

Description

## Impact Three security vulnerabilities were identified in the OIDC Discovery client: 1. **Blind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via Cross-Host Redirects**: Fulcio uses an HTTP client to fetch OIDC discovery metadata (`/.well-known/openid-configuration`). Prior to this fix, if a configured issuer returned an HTTP redirect to a different host, the client followed it by default. This allowed a compromised or malicious issuer to redirect Fulcio's discovery requests to internal-only systems, resulting in blind SSRF. 2. **JWKS Substitution and Cache Poisoning**: Because cross-host redirects were permitted during OIDC discovery, an attacker could manipulate the discovery flow to return a malicious `jwks_uri` pointing to an attacker-controlled host. When Fulcio successfully initialized the provider and cached the resulting verifier in the verifier cache, it poisoned the cache with the attacker's verification keys. The attacker could then present signatures validated against the poisoned keys. 3. **Kubernetes ServiceAccount Token Leakage**: Fulcio mounts an in-cluster Kubernetes ServiceAccount token to authenticate OIDC discovery requests sent to the local control plane API server (`https://kubernetes.default.svc`). * **Cross-Host Redirects & JWKS**: The token was previously attached globally by the transport, leaking it to third-party hosts if the issuer performed a redirect or if the `jwks_uri` pointed to a different domain. * **Wildcard MetaIssuers**: If a wildcard `MetaIssuer` of type `kubernetes` (e.g., matching external EKS/GKE endpoints) was matched, and a local Kubernetes issuer was present in the config, the transport loaded and attached the local in-cluster ServiceAccount token to outbound requests sent to the external host. ## Patches The following mitigations have been applied: * **Blocked Cross-Host Redirects**: A custom callback is configured on all OIDC discovery HTTP clients to reject redirects that attempt to cross the original issuer's host boundary. * **Restricted Token Injection**: Updated the transport to only attach the ServiceAccount token when the outgoing request's host exactly matches the configured host of the issuer. * **Restricted Local Token Loading**: Constrained the loader to only load and wrap the transport with the local ServiceAccount token when the target issuer URL exactly matches the private local API server (`https://kubernetes.default.svc`). ## Workarounds None, upgrade to v1.8.6

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (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

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats