HighCVE-2026-62290

    Cert-manager: Incorrect Authorization (CVE-2026-62290)

    Published Last modified Sources: OSV, CVE.org, Hersteller

    Share

    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..*

    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.io resources in at least one namespace.
    • The cert-manager controller is running and reconciles ACME Challenge resources cluster-wide.
    • A usable ClusterIssuer exists in the cluster.
    • The referenced ClusterIssuer has a DNS01 solver that uses a Secret in the cluster resource namespace, or relies on ambient credentials enabled for ClusterIssuer.
    • 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:

    • master commit 2c0f1a6a4
    • latest production release v1.20.2 commit e5b7b1845
    • v1.19.5 commit cda7b7896
    • v1.18.6 commit 4699caabb

    See VERSION_TEST_MATRIX.md for the command matrix and outputs.

    Technical details

    Relevant code paths:

    • internal/apis/acme/validation/challenge.go:44-45: ValidateChallenge returns no errors on create.
    • deploy/crds/acme.cert-manager.io_challenges.yaml: spec.solver is a required user-controlled field on Challenge.
    • pkg/controller/acmechallenges/scheduler/scheduler.go:51-58: scheduler lists all Challenges.
    • pkg/controller/acmechallenges/controller.go:180-197: scheduler sets status.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 solver Present ignores the issuer object argument.
    • pkg/issuer/acme/dns/dns.go:180-187: DNS provider config and resource namespace are derived from Challenge.spec.
    • pkg/controller/helper.go:39-44: ClusterIssuer references use the cluster resource namespace.
    • pkg/controller/helper.go:66-72: ambient credentials are allowed based on issuerRef.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/update challenges and orders.

    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 products
    Affected versionsFixed in
    cert-managercert-manager
    • ≥ 1.18.0, < 1.19.6
    • —
    linuxfoundationcert-manager
    • 1.18.0 – < 1.19.6
    • 1.20.0 – < 1.20.3
    • 1.19.6
    • 1.20.3
    gogithub.com/cert-manager/cert-manager
    • 1.20.0-alpha.0
    • 1.18.0
    • >= 1.18.0, < 1.19.6
    • >= 1.20.0-alpha.0, < 1.20.3
    • 1.20.3
    • 1.19.6
    • 1.19.6
    • 1.20.3

    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).

    1. Initial analysis by NVDNVD

      Show 9 original changes
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      Product configurationadded
      —
      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) 1.20.3
      Reference typeadded
      —
      GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/commit/6bda47297c8fbc6b121b8b76624b668d26f1a155 Types: Patch
      Reference typeadded
      —
      GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/commit/b37dbf01ecea50a0b3a19df0a7fe4c5ad6803f16 Types: Patch
      Reference typeadded
      —
      GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/8940 Types: Issue Tracking, Patch
      Reference typeadded
      —
      GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/pull/8941 Types: Issue Tracking, Patch
      Reference typeadded
      —
      GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/releases/tag/v1.19.6 Types: Product, Release Notes
      Reference typeadded
      —
      GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/releases/tag/v1.20.3 Types: Product, Release Notes
      Reference typeadded
      —
      GitHub, Inc.: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/security/advisories/GHSA-8rvj-mm4h-c258 Types: Exploit, Mitigation, Vendor Advisory
      Reference typeadded
      —
      CISA-ADP: https://github.com/cert-manager/cert-manager/security/advisories/GHSA-8rvj-mm4h-c258 Types: Exploit, Mitigation, Vendor Advisory

      Source 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.

    Badge preview for CVE-2026-62290
    <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>