VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-55433: Coder · Devcontainer recreate endpoint missing write authorization allows read-only roles to destroy containers

Affects github.com/coder/coder/v2Source GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 2.34.2 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.34.2, 2.33.8, 2.32.7 +1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Jul 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/coder/coder/v2	Affected >=2.34.0 <2.34.2	Fixed in 2.34.2
Gogithub.com/coder/coder/v2	Affected >=2.33.0 <2.33.8	Fixed in 2.33.8
Gogithub.com/coder/coder/v2	Affected >=2.30.0 <2.32.7	Fixed in 2.32.7
Gogithub.com/coder/coder/v2	Affected <2.29.17	Fixed in 2.29.17

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available and has been backported to all supported release lines. Users should upgrade to versions 2.34.2, 2.33.8, 2.32.7, or 2.29.17 or later to remediate this vulnerability. No workarounds exist. Applying the official update is the recommended mitigation.

Description

### Summary The devcontainer recreate endpoint relied on route middleware that checked only `ActionRead` on the workspace and, unlike the sibling delete endpoint, performed no `ActionUpdate` check before triggering the destructive rebuild. > **Note:** Exploitation requires an existing low-privilege role with access to the target workspace. ### Impact Any authenticated principal with read-only workspace access, such as a Template Admin or Org Template Admin, could recreate a devcontainer, destroying uncommitted in-container state and, if called repeatedly, denying service. This is an authorization bypass leading to data loss and denial of service. ### Patches The fix adds an explicit `ActionUpdate` authorization check before the agent is dialed like the delete endpoint. The fix was backported to all supported release lines: | Release line | Patched version | |---|---| | 2.34 | [v2.34.2](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.34.2) | | 2.33 | [v2.33.8](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.33.8) | | 2.32 | [v2.32.7](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.32.7) | | 2.29 (ESR) | [v2.29.17](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.29.17) | ### Workarounds None. ### Resources - Fix: #25812 ### Credits Coder would like to thank Anthropic's Security Team (ANT-2026-22454) for independently disclosing this issue!

Impact

Authenticated users with read-only workspace access can bypass intended authorization controls to destroy devcontainers, resulting in loss of uncommitted data and potential denial of service. This represents an authorization bypass vulnerability leading to integrity and availability impacts but does not affect confidentiality.

Summary

The devcontainer recreate endpoint in Coder's software relied on middleware that only checked read permissions (ActionRead) on the workspace, unlike the delete endpoint which also checked update permissions (ActionUpdate). This allowed any authenticated user with read-only access to recreate (and thus destroy) devcontainers, causing loss of uncommitted data and potential denial of service through repeated calls. The vulnerability requires an existing low-privilege role with access to the workspace. The fix introduces an explicit ActionUpdate authorization check before the destructive operation is performed. The fix has been backported to all supported release lines, including versions 2.34.2, 2.33.8, 2.32.7, and 2.29.17.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 6 Jul 2026, 23:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats