@sigstore/oci sends the registry Authorization header to a cross-host blob-upload Location (CVE-2026-118763)
Published Last modified Sources: OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
What is affected, what to do
Update Sigstore-js to version 0.7.2.
- Affected
- Sigstore-js
lt *..0.7.2
- Sigstore-js
- Fixed in
- Sigstore-js
0.7.2
- Sigstore-js
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
7.4
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v3
7.4
CVSS v3
Severity High on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
0.3 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 22.7
Show all metrics
- Severity
- High
Priority (0–325)
The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?
Read in glossary- 71.13 Methodology
Exploit maturity
An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.
Read in glossary- no public PoC known
XIEM Effective CVSS
XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.
Read in glossary- 7.4 Methodology
CVSS v3
CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.
Read in glossary- 7.4
EPSS score
The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.
Read in glossary- 0.3 %
- Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile
The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.
Read in glossary- 22.7
- Elevated — this CVE ranks above at least 10% of all CVEs scored today.
KEV status
The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.
Read in glossary- —
- Published
- CISA assessment (SSVC)
- Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
- Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 30 October 2026
CWE
CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.
Read in glossary- CWE-522
Detection rules
No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.
Classification under NIS2 and CRA
Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.
NIS2
NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.
Read in glossary- High technical severity: assess and remediate the vulnerability in vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2 and document the decision.
CRA
The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.
Read in glossary- From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.
Read in glossary- Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.
Description
Summary
@sigstore/oci sends the registry Authorization header to a cross-host blob-upload Location
Affected versions and vulnerable location
- Confirmed on sigstore-js at
3a83271(current HEAD). - File:
packages/oci/src/registry.ts.signIn()installs the credential as a DEFAULT header on the shared client:this.#fetch = this.#fetch.defaults({ headers: { [HEADER_AUTHORIZATION]: 'Basic ' + basicAuth } })(:126-128) or... 'Bearer ' + token(:145-147), pluscreds.headersfrom the Docker config (:104).uploadBlob()reads theLocationresponse header (:184), buildsuploadLocation = new URL(location.startsWith('/') ? this.#baseURL + location : location)(:190-192), and PUTs the blob to it through the same client:await this.#fetch(uploadLocation.href, { method: 'PUT', body: blob, headers: { [HEADER_CONTENT_TYPE]: ... } })(:198).
- There is no check that
uploadLocation's host (or scheme) equals the registry host before the PUT is sent.
Root cause
Because signIn() sets Authorization via .defaults(), it is attached to every request the client issues, including requests to a host the client read out of a server response. When a POST to .../blobs/uploads/ returns an absolute Location pointing to a different host, uploadBlob() PUTs the blob there with the registry Authorization header still attached. If the challenge scheme was basic, that header carries the raw registry username:password; if bearer, it carries the access token; creds.headers custom auth headers ride along too.
The library's HTTP layer (make-fetch-happen / minipass-fetch) strips Authorization on cross-host redirects it follows internally, which protects the HEAD ... { redirect: 'follow' } at :167. It does not help here, because the PUT to the upload Location is a fresh, explicit this.#fetch() call, not a followed redirect, so the default header is applied unconditionally.
This is a residual of GHSA-pf56-329r-95rw / CVE-2026-59891 (credential confusion in @sigstore/oci). The fix for that advisory (commit 85c5838) changed only credentials.ts, replacing a key.includes(registry) substring match with an exact host match when SELECTING which Docker credential to load. It never touched registry.ts, which controls WHERE the loaded credential is sent. The cross-host send remains.
Attacker model
A user pushing a signed artifact/attestation to an OCI registry via attachArtifactToImage(). The credential leaks to any host the registry names in the blob-upload Location. This is reachable when the registry is malicious or compromised, or when a registry that legitimately redirects blob uploads to third-party storage is impersonated. The OCI distribution spec permits absolute upload Location values (registries commonly redirect blob storage to a separate host), so a compliant-but-hostile registry can steer the PUT to an attacker host and capture the credential. This is the same "attacker-controlled registry" threat model accepted for GHSA-pf56.
Reachability trace
index.ts:43 attachArtifactToImage() -> new OCIImage(...).addArtifact() -> image.ts:67 this.#client.signIn(credentials) (installs the default Authorization header) -> image.ts:76/79 this.#client.uploadBlob(...) -> registry.ts:198 PUT to the response-supplied Location with the default Authorization header attached. Same RegistryClient instance throughout, so the default persists.
Reproduction
Source-verified. No live push against a hostile registry was executed in this pass. Confirmed:
rg -n "defaults\(|HEADER_AUTHORIZATION|Location|new URL\(|this.#fetch\(uploadLocation" packages/oci/src/registry.ts
git log --oneline -3 -- packages/oci/src/credentials.ts packages/oci/src/registry.ts
signIn() sets Authorization via .defaults(); uploadBlob() PUTs to uploadLocation.href (which may be an absolute cross-host URL) with no host check; the GHSA-pf56 fix commit is the latest change to credentials.ts, while registry.ts has only dependency bumps since.
Suggested fix
Do not send the registry Authorization (or creds.headers) to an upload Location on a different host. Compare uploadLocation.host (and require https) against the registry host before the PUT; if it differs, issue the PUT without the credential (matching how registries that redirect to pre-signed storage URLs expect the upload to be unauthenticated), or explicitly re-authenticate for that host. More generally, avoid attaching the credential via a client-wide .defaults() and instead attach it per-request only to the registry host.
How it was found and a note on tooling
Every place @sigstore/oci was traced to attach a credential to an outbound request and checked whether the request host can be steered by a server response. The blob-upload Location path attaches the client-default Authorization to a PUT whose host comes from the registry response, with no host-equality check, and the GHSA-pf56 fix touched only the credential-selection code, not this send path. I used AI assistance for the trace and drafting and manually verified the cited lines and the fix scope at HEAD 3a83271. Verification is source-only; I did not execute a push against a hostile registry.
Independent re-verification at HEAD (2026-07-31)
Re-read at HEAD 3a83271. Unchanged, and the two halves sit in the same file:
126-127: this.#fetch = this.#fetch.defaults({ headers: { [HEADER_AUTHORIZATION]: `Basic ${basicAuth}` } })
145-146: this.#fetch = this.#fetch.defaults({ headers: { [HEADER_AUTHORIZATION]: `Bearer ${token}` } })
104: this.#fetch = this.#fetch.defaults({ headers: creds.headers })
and in uploadBlob():
const uploadLocation = new URL(
location.startsWith('/') ? `${this.#baseURL}${location}` : location
);
...
await this.#fetch(uploadLocation.href, { method: 'PUT', ... });
The ternary is the whole issue. A relative Location is anchored to #baseURL, but an absolute one is
passed to new URL() verbatim, so its host is whatever the registry response said. There is no comparison
against the registry host or scheme before the PUT, and because the credential was installed with
.defaults() rather than passed per-request, it is attached automatically.
Worth separating from the redirect case: the HEAD at the top of uploadBlob() uses
redirect: 'follow', and the fetch layer does strip Authorization across hosts on redirects it follows
itself. That protection does not apply here, because the PUT is a fresh explicit call the library makes to
a URL it parsed out of a response body header, not a redirect being followed.
This has not been executed against a hostile registry, so the leak is traced from the source rather than observed on the wire. The control flow above is unambiguous, but it is better to state the limit than imply a packet capture that has not been created.
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), GitHub Security Advisories, cvelistv5, NVD (NIST)
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| sigstore | sigstore-js |
|
|
| npm | @sigstore/oci |
|
|
Vendors and products
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-522Insufficiently Protected Credentials
Class
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
Entry at MITRE CWE-522
References & sources
- github.comsigstore/sigstore-js/commit/b855f46cfe81f26481c6d3f4b333dfd00f2…x_refsource_MISC, web
- github.comsigstore/sigstore-js/commit/e4ca65c3ab3c675456ab9b0bd04217cecca…x_refsource_MISC, web
- github.comsigstore/sigstore-js/pull/1762x_refsource_MISC, web
- github.comsigstore/sigstore-js/releases/tag/@sigstore/oci@0.7.2x_refsource_MISC, web
- github.comsigstore/sigstore-js/security/advisories/GHSA-j63v-mwhm-56jxx_refsource_CONFIRM, web
- NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-118763advisory
- github.comsigstore/sigstore-jspackage
Changes to this CVE
Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).
Record modifiedCISA ADP
CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: none known, automatable: no
Show the original change
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After SSVC assessment added —{"id":"CVE-2026-118763","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-10-30T15:20:32.038162Z"}Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0
ReceivedGitHub
CVSS V3.1: AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Weakness type: CWE-522
Description added or changed
New references:- https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/commit/b855f46cfe81f26481c6d3f4b333dfd00f2fd1b1
- https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/commit/e4ca65c3ab3c675456ab9b0bd04217ceccad3558
- https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/pull/1762
- https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/releases/tag/@sigstore/oci@0.7.2
and 1 more reference
Show 9 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Description added —sigstore-js provides JavaScript libraries for interacting with Sigstore services. Prior to 0.7.2, packages/oci/src/registry.ts contains a RegistryClient.signIn() method that stores registry Authorization and Docker configuration headers as defaults on a shared HTTP client, while RegistryClient.uploadBlob() sends a fresh PUT to an absolute blob-upload Location supplied by the registry without checking that its origin or scheme matches the registry. A malicious or compromised registry can therefore direct a user pushing an artifact through attachArtifactToImage() to an attacker-controlled host and receive the registry bearer token, Basic credentials, or custom authentication headers. Redirect-time header stripping does not prevent the leak because the cross-host PUT is a new explicit request rather than a followed redirect. This is a residual of CVE-2026-59891, whose fix changed credential selection in credentials.ts but did not constrain where credentials are sent from registry.ts. Version 0.7.2 fixes the issue by separating registry credentials from client-wide defaults and sending them only to the registry origin.CVSS added —AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:NWeakness type (CWE) added —CWE-522Affected versions (publisher) added —New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/118xxx/CVE-2026-118763.json">CVE-2026-118763</a>Reference added —https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/commit/b855f46cfe81f26481c6d3f4b333dfd00f2fd1b1Reference added —https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/commit/e4ca65c3ab3c675456ab9b0bd04217ceccad3558Reference added —https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/pull/1762Reference added —https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/releases/tag/@sigstore/oci@0.7.2Reference added —https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-js/security/advisories/GHSA-j63v-mwhm-56jxSource identifier: security-advisories@github.com
Embed badge
Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.
<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-118763"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-118763.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-118763 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>