Skip to content

Fission Environment CRD podspec passthrough enables hostPID/hostNetwork/privileged pods, node escape

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 26, 2026 in fission/fission • Updated Jun 30, 2026

Package

github.com/fission/fission (Go)

Affected versions

<= 1.23.0

Patched versions

1.24.0

Description

Summary

Fission's Environment CRD exposes spec.runtime.podSpec and spec.builder.podSpec, which are merged into the Kubernetes pod specs for runtime and builder pods. The merge logic propagated hostNetwork, hostPID, hostIPC, container
privileged, and serviceAccountName from the user-supplied podspec with no filtering, and Environment.Validate performed no security-relevant checks on these fields.

Details

A namespace user with create/update on environments.fission.io could produce privileged, host-network, hostPID pods in the Fission function or builder namespace. Because the Helm chart created the fission-function and
fission-builder namespaces with no pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce labels, Kubernetes Pod Security Admission did not catch the escape either.

From a host-network privileged pod with hostPID, the attacker could nsenter into the host, read cloud-metadata credentials, access the container-runtime socket, pivot to other namespaces, and fully compromise the node.

Impact

environments.fission.io create/update RBAC is escalated to node compromise — host filesystem and network access on the scheduling node, and from there potential cluster-wide takeover.

Fix

Fixed in #3391 and released in v1.24.0. Denylist at admission (the primary defence) plus belt-and-braces at the merge layer.

Admission denylist (pkg/apis/core/v1/podspec_safety.go::ValidatePodSpecSafety), called from Environment.Validate for both Runtime.PodSpec and Builder.PodSpec:

  • pod-level: HostNetwork, HostPID, HostIPC, ServiceAccountName / DeprecatedServiceAccount override, hostPath volumes;
  • per-container: SecurityContext.Privileged=true, SecurityContext.AllowPrivilegeEscalation=true, dangerous capabilities (SYS_ADMIN, NET_ADMIN, SYS_PTRACE, SYS_MODULE, DAC_READ_SEARCH, DAC_OVERRIDE).

Update-bypass closed: the Environment validating-webhook marker is extended from verbs=create to verbs=create;update (chart and envtest manifests aligned).

Merge-layer belt-and-braces (pkg/executor/util/merge.go): even if admission is bypassed (failurePolicy=Ignore or stale pre-webhook objects), the denylisted pod-level fields are stripped and per-container dangerous settings are
sanitized before the merge (with SecurityContext deep-copied first so cached informer objects are not mutated). Legitimate operator hardening via the chart's pod-level securityContext (fsGroup, runAsNonRoot, runAsUser) still flows
through.

Behavioural change

Environments that explicitly set any denylisted field are now rejected at admission. There is no legitimate Fission use case — these primitives exist for cluster operators, not Environment authors.

This is the same root cause and fix as GHSA-wmgg-3p4h-48x7.

References

@sanketsudake sanketsudake published to fission/fission May 26, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jun 10, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 30, 2026
Reviewed Jun 30, 2026
Last updated Jun 30, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(19th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor. Learn more on MITRE.

Protection Mechanism Failure

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-50564

GHSA ID

GHSA-gx55-f84r-v3r7

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.