Open-Source Security Intelligence

Know every vulnerability
before it knows you.

DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.

Search

GHSA-jr6p-8pjj-mfx6

MediumCVSS 6.6 / 10
Published Jul 31, 2026·Last modified Jul 31, 2026
Affected Components(0)

No affected components available

Description

Summary

CVE-2026-22872 (GHSA-qjjm-7j9w-pw72) reported that a Tenant Owner could create cluster-scoped resources (e.g. ClusterRole, ValidatingWebhookConfiguration) through a TenantResource, because the controller applies them with its cluster-admin ServiceAccount and SetNamespace is ineffective for cluster-scoped kinds. The v0.13.0 fix added a cluster-scope rejection guard, but only on the NamespacedItems selection path (ResourceReference.LoadResources -> IsNamespacedGVK, error "cluster-scoped kind ... is not allowed"). The RawItems create path — the exact vector the original advisory named — and the Generators path were not given this guard. The vulnerability therefore persists in all releases v0.13.0 through v0.13.7 and on trunk HEAD (8d89d6865d).

Details

TenantResource reconcile flow:

  • internal/controllers/resources/namespaced.go reconcile() obtains the apply client via loadClient(); by default (impersonation off, no Spec.ServiceAccount) this is the manager client whose SA is bound to cluster-admin (charts/capsule/templates/rbac.yaml:488-501, {fullname}-manager-rolebinding -> roleRef cluster-admin).
  • Collector.Collect() (collect.go) processes spec.RawItems via handleRawItem and spec.Generators via handleGeneratorItem.

handleRawItem (collect.go:406-425, trunk HEAD — byte-identical to v0.13.0):

tmplString := tpl.FastTemplate(string(item.Raw), opts.Iterator.FastContext)
obj := &unstructured.Unstructured{}
unstructured.UnstructuredJSONScheme.Decode([]byte(tmplString), nil, obj)
if ns != nil { obj.SetNamespace(ns.Name) }   // ONLY mitigation
return obj, nil                                // NO IsNamespacedGVK / allowClusterScoped guard

handleGeneratorItem (collect.go:382-404) is the same: it only SetNamespaces on rendered objects.

The accumulated objects flow to pkg/api/processor/processor_func.go Reconcile() -> Apply() -> clt.PatchApply(ctx, c, obj, ...) (line 167/378) with no scope check at any point.

By contrast, CollectNamespacedItems (collect.go:308) calls item.LoadResources(..., allowClusterScoped=false), and pkg/template/reference.go:105-107 enforces:

if !allowClusterScoped && !isNamespaced {
    return nil, fmt.Errorf("cluster-scoped kind %s/%s is not allowed", ...)
}

So the guard the fix added is real, but it sits on a different (selection) path than the one the CVE described (RawItems create path). For cluster-scoped kinds, SetNamespace is ignored by the Kubernetes API server, so the object is created cluster-wide by the cluster-admin client.

Parent-fix diff confirmation: in v0.12.4 the RawItems handler in processor.go was the vulnerable code (obj.SetNamespace(ns.Name) then createOrUpdate via r.client). v0.13.0 refactored this into collect.go handleRawItem but left it without the new guard.

Proof of Concept

A self-contained in-process Go test (incompletefix_poc_test.go), run against trunk HEAD with go1.26.4, proves the asymmetry:

  • TestRawItemPath_NoClusterScopeGuard: feeds a ClusterRole rawItem to handleRawItem -> object returned unchanged, no rejection (PASS).
  • TestNamespacedItemsPath_HasClusterScopeGuard: feeds the same ClusterRole kind to LoadResources(allowClusterScoped=false) -> rejected with "cluster-scoped kind rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1/ClusterRole is not allowed" (PASS).
VULNERABLE: RawItems path accepted cluster-scoped rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1/ClusterRole;
            metadata.namespace="tenant-ns" (ignored by API server for cluster-scoped kinds)
GUARDED:    NamespacedItems path correctly rejected cluster-scoped kind:
            cluster-scoped kind rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1/ClusterRole is not allowed

End-to-end (cluster) reproduction:

  1. Deploy capsule (default Helm) with rbac.resources.create=true (the opt-in that exposes TenantResources to tenant owners; the configuration the original CVE applies to).
  2. As a Tenant Owner, create in a tenant namespace:
    apiVersion: capsule.clastix.io/v1beta2
    kind: TenantResource
    metadata: {name: pwn, namespace: <tenant-ns>}
    spec:
      resources:
        - namespaceSelector: {matchLabels: {capsule.clastix.io/tenant: <tenant>}}
          rawItems:
            - apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
              kind: ClusterRole
              metadata: {name: tenant-escalation}
              rules: [{apiGroups: ["*"], resources: ["*"], verbs: ["*"]}]
    
  3. Observe the cluster-scoped ClusterRole tenant-escalation is created by the cluster-admin controller, despite the tenant owner lacking cluster RBAC to create it. Swap in ValidatingWebhookConfiguration to intercept/exfiltrate cluster-wide Secrets.

Impact

A Tenant Owner (namespace-scoped) escalates to cluster-admin-equivalent privileges and can compromise all tenants and the cluster control plane. Identical impact to CVE-2026-22872; the v0.13.0 remediation does not close the RawItems/Generators vector.

Remediation

Apply the same IsNamespacedGVK / allowClusterScoped rejection inside handleRawItem and handleGeneratorItem — or centrally in Collector.AddToAccumulation / processor.Apply — so the create path enforces the same cluster-scope policy as the selection path. (GlobalTenantResource shares the path but is not a privesc — cluster-admin-only to create.)

Risk Scores
Base Score
6.6

The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker needs high-level or administrative privileges. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The vulnerability can affect other systems as well, not just the initial system. There is a low impact on the confidentiality of the information. There is a low impact on the integrity of the data. There is a low impact on the availability of the system.

Threat Intelligence
6.1

Exploitation attempts have been detected. Elevated vigilance and prompt remediation are advised.

EPSS
0.19%

The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.

Exploit
Not available

We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.

Browse More

Scan your project

Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.

Checkout DevGuard