VulnerabilityPublished 6 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-71325: Traefik · `allowCrossNamespace=false` bypass via `@kubernetescrd` TraefikService backendRef

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

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-41174

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium : upgrade to 2.11.54 when convenient.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 00:01 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

4.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.11.54, 3.6.25, 3.7.10

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: Low
Subsequent system integrity: Low
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System.
Subsequent system 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 to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 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 5 Nov 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/traefik/traefik/v2 to 2.11.54; github.com/traefik/traefik/v3 to 3.6.25; github.com/traefik/traefik/v3 to 3.7.10.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/traefik/traefik/v2	Affected <2.11.54	Fixed in 2.11.54
Gogithub.com/traefik/traefik/v3	Affected >=3.0.0 <3.6.25	Fixed in 3.6.25
Gogithub.com/traefik/traefik/v3	Affected >=3.7.0 <3.7.10	Fixed in 3.7.10
Gogithub.com/traefik/traefik	Affected <=1.7.34	Fixed in–

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 users should upgrade to Traefik versions 2.11.54, 3.6.25, or 3.7.10 or later. Versions in the unmaintained v3 minor lines below 3.6.25 will not receive patches on their own line, so upgrading to a maintained, patched release is necessary. No alternative mitigations are indicated in the vendor advisory.

Description

## Summary There is a medium severity vulnerability in Traefik's Kubernetes CRD provider. When `providers.kubernetesCRD.allowCrossNamespace` is disabled — the default — cross-namespace `@kubernetescrd` references are rejected for middlewares, TLS options and HTTP/TCP ServersTransports, but the same restriction was not applied to `TraefikService` backend references resolved by the service resolver. A tenant confined by RBAC to a single namespace can therefore bind its own router to a `TraefikService` owned by another namespace and expose or reroute that namespace's backend, defeating the namespace isolation `allowCrossNamespace=false` is meant to enforce. Traefik v2 releases and the unmaintained v3 minor lines below v3.6 are affected and will not receive a patch on their own line; the remedy for those users is upgrading to a maintained, patched release. ## Patches - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v2.11.54 - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.6.25 - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.7.10 ## For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please [open an issue](https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues). <details> <summary>Original Description</summary> ### Summary When `providers.kubernetesCRD.allowCrossNamespace=false` (the default), Traefik correctly rejects cross-namespace `@kubernetescrd` references for middlewares, TLS options, and HTTP/TCP `ServersTransport`, but it does not apply the same restriction to service (`TraefikService`) backendRefs. As a result, a Kubernetes tenant who is confined by RBAC to their own namespace can bind their own router to a `TraefikService` owned by another namespace simply by referencing it as `<victim-namespace>-<name>@kubernetescrd`, defeating the namespace-isolation boundary that `allowCrossNamespace=false` is meant to enforce. This is the service-resolver sibling of the cross-namespace isolation family that Traefik has been fixing one resolver at a time (`df00d82f` / CVE-2026-41174 for Chain middlewares, and `67501cbe` for TCP `ServersTransport`, which shipped in v3.7.7 only four days before the analyzed commit). The `TraefikService` resolver in `configBuilder.nameAndService` was never given the guard its sibling resolvers received. ### Details ### Root cause `nameAndService` only performs the same-namespace check (`isNamespaceAllowed`) inside the branch that handles names without an `@` separator. For names that contain an `@` separator (that is, `@kubernetescrd` cross-namespace references) it applies only the `crossProviderNamespaces` allowlist check, and that check returns `true` by default because a `nil` allowlist means "unrestricted". It never applies the `!allowCrossNamespace && strings.HasSuffix(name, "@kubernetescrd")` rejection that the sibling resolvers all apply, so `allowCrossNamespace=false` is effectively never consulted for `@kubernetescrd` service references. ### Vulnerable code ```go // pkg/provider/kubernetes/crd/kubernetes_http.go:662-695 — nameAndService (VULNERABLE) func (c configBuilder) nameAndService(ctx context.Context, parentNamespace string, service traefikv1alpha1.LoadBalancerSpec) (string, *dynamic.Service, error) { svcCtx := log.Ctx(ctx).With().Str(logs.ServiceName, service.Name).Logger().WithContext(ctx) if !strings.Contains(service.Name, providerNamespaceSeparator) { // 665: only names WITHOUT "@" service = *service.DeepCopy() service.Namespace = namespaceOrParentNamespace(service.Namespace, parentNamespace) if !isNamespaceAllowed(c.allowCrossNamespace, parentNamespace, service.Namespace) { // 669 return "", nil, fmt.Errorf("service %s/%s not in the parent resource namespace %s", ...) } } // 674: for "@"-names, the ONLY gate is crossProviderNamespaces, which defaults to allow-all (nil). if !isCrossProviderNamespaceAllowed(c.crossProviderNamespaces, parentNamespace) && strings.Contains(service.Name, providerNamespaceSeparator) { return "", nil, fmt.Errorf("service %q reference is not allowed: ...", service.Name) } // ^-- MISSING: no `!c.allowCrossNamespace && strings.HasSuffix(service.Name, "@"+ProviderName)` rejection. switch service.Kind { case "TraefikService": return fullServiceName(svcCtx, service, intstr.FromInt(0)), nil, nil // 690: returns the cross-namespace reference ... } } ``` For comparison, the sibling resolver used for middleware and TLS references does carry the guard: ```go // pkg/provider/kubernetes/crd/kubernetes.go:1653-1668 — resolveReference (CORRECT) func resolveReference(ctx context.Context, parentNs, ns, name string, crossProviderNamespaces []string, allowCrossNamespace bool) (string, error) { if strings.Contains(name, providerNamespaceSeparator) { if !allowCrossNamespace && strings.HasSuffix(name, providerNamespaceSeparator+ProviderName) { return "", errors.New("when allowCrossNamespace is disabled, @kubernetescrd references are disallowed") // 1656 — THE GUARD } ... } ... } ```

Impact

The vulnerability allows a Kubernetes tenant restricted by RBAC to their own namespace to bind their router to a TraefikService in a different namespace. This defeats the namespace isolation intended by the `allowCrossNamespace=false` setting, potentially exposing or rerouting backend services across namespaces. This could lead to unauthorized access or traffic manipulation between namespaces within the same Kubernetes cluster.

Summary

Traefik's Kubernetes CRD provider has a vulnerability where the `allowCrossNamespace` setting, when disabled (default), correctly prevents cross-namespace `@kubernetescrd` references for middlewares, TLS options, and ServersTransports but fails to enforce this restriction on TraefikService backend references. This occurs because the service resolver's `nameAndService` function does not apply the same namespace check for names containing the `@kubernetescrd` suffix, allowing cross-namespace references despite the setting. Consequently, a tenant limited by RBAC to a single namespace can reference a TraefikService in another namespace, bypassing namespace isolation. The vulnerability is fixed in Traefik versions 2.11.54, 3.6.25, and 3.7.10, with earlier versions affected as specified.

CWE-653Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly compartmentalize or isolate functionality, processes, or resources that require different privilege levels, rights, or permissions.
Architecture and Design
Break up privileges between different modules, objects, or entities. Minimize the interfaces between modules and require strong access control between them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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)
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 Aug 2026, 18:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-653, CWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats