CVE-2026-54495VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jul 2026

github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator · open-feature-operator: Cross-namespace FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration resolution exposes spec contents

Affects github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operatorSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2020-8554

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-54495· Medium 4.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 17 Sep 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 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
Gogithub.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator	Affected <=0.9.2	Fixed in–

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

Description

## Summary A namespaced `FeatureFlagSource` or `InProcessConfiguration` resource can be referenced cross-namespace via the `openfeature.dev/featureflagsource` annotation using the documented `{NAMESPACE}/{NAME}` syntax. The operator resolves the referenced resource cluster-wide and materializes its contents (env vars, flagd sidecar arguments including `httpSyncBearerToken`, sync URIs, supporting ConfigMaps) into the referencing workload. On multi-tenant clusters that treat namespaces as trust boundaries, a tenant who can deploy a controller-owned workload in their own namespace can cause the operator to read another tenant's `FeatureFlagSource` / `InProcessConfiguration` spec contents. ## Impact - **Single-tenant clusters**: not impacted. - **Multi-tenant clusters using namespaces as trust boundaries**: tenant-to-tenant disclosure of any data placed inline in `FeatureFlagSource` / `InProcessConfiguration` spec, including `spec.envVars` literal values, `spec.httpSyncBearerToken`, and sync URIs. ## Behavior is documented The cross-namespace `{NAMESPACE}/{NAME}` annotation syntax is intentional and documented in [`docs/annotations.md`](https://github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator/blob/main/docs/annotations.md) and [`docs/feature_flag_source.md`](https://github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator/blob/main/docs/feature_flag_source.md). The operator's cluster-wide RBAC scope is intentional. Namespace-as-trust-boundary is not part of the operator's current stated security model. This advisory makes the tenancy assumption explicit and tracks the architectural change that will eliminate the implicit cross-namespace pattern. ## Corrections to the original report Two technical points in the original report require correction: 1. **`secretKeyRef` / `configMapKeyRef` cross-namespace disclosure is not possible via this path.** Kubelet resolves these as `LocalObjectReference` against the pod's own namespace; the operator does not bypass that. The actual disclosure surface is `FeatureFlagSource` / `InProcessConfiguration` spec contents the operator itself materializes (inline `envVars` values, `httpSyncBearerToken`, sync URIs). 2. **`create featureflagsources` is not a prerequisite.** The webhook rejects pods without OwnerReferences ([`pod_webhook.go:75-77`](https://github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator/blob/main/internal/webhook/pod_webhook.go#L75)), so the prerequisite is `create` on a workload controller (`deployments`, `statefulsets`, `daemonsets`, `jobs`, `cronjobs`, `replicasets`) in a namespace the attacker controls. `FeatureFlagSource` create in any namespace is not required. ## Mitigations As with any Kubernetes CRD, treat the spec content of `FeatureFlagSource` and `InProcessConfiguration` as readable by anyone with read access to the resource, and don't place plaintext secrets in CR spec fields. Fields most likely to bite users: - `spec.sources[].source`, when the URI embeds credentials (e.g. `https://user:pass@host/repo`) - `spec.sources[].certPath`, if the path itself is sensitive - inline `spec.envVars[].value` (use `valueFrom.secretKeyRef` instead; kubelet enforces same-namespace resolution and the secret value is not stored in the CR) If developers treat namespaces as trust boundaries: - restrict `create` on `featureflagsources` / `inprocessconfigurations` via RBAC where feasible, ## Roadmap A future release will introduce explicit cluster-scoped CRDs (`ClusterFeatureFlagSource`, `ClusterInProcessConfiguration`) and remove implicit cross-namespace resolution. This is a breaking change tracked in [#847](https://github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator/issues/847). ## Precedent This class of issue (authenticated namespace tenant abuses an unenforced cluster-wide surface that crosses an assumed namespace boundary) has Kubernetes precedent: CVE-2020-8554 (External IPs) was accepted as documented posture and mitigated via an opt-in admission plugin. ## Credit Reported by @0xVijay. Thanks for the disclosure. This appears to be an example of https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/668.html. In terms of how it ended up here, it's more of an unimplemented security feature than an "bug". It seems to deviate from reasonable expectations and conventions in the K8s ecosystem. See https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/cve-2020-8554 as an example of a comparable vulnerability.

CWE-668Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (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-668

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats