Skip to content

Fission Environment CRD PodSpec Injection Leading to Node Escape and Cluster Takeover

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

A stronger framing of the same root cause as GHSA-gx55-f84r-v3r7: the Environment.spec.runtime.podSpec / spec.builder.podSpec passthrough lacked validation, and MergePodSpec propagated dangerous fields into the generated pods.

Details

Three independent flaws compounded:

  1. Validate gap. pkg/apis/core/v1/validation.go::Environment.Validate checked only container naming conventions, never hostPID/hostIPC/hostNetwork/hostPath/privileged.
  2. UPDATE bypass. The pkg/webhook/environment.go kubebuilder marker registered verbs=create only. A tenant could kubectl apply a clean Environment and then kubectl patch in the dangerous fields — the webhook was never called.
  3. Merge propagation. pkg/executor/util/merge.go::MergePodSpec unconditionally forwarded HostPID, HostIPC, HostNetwork, Volumes (including hostPath), SecurityContext, and ServiceAccountName into the Deployments
    generated by poolmgr / newdeploy / buildermgr.

A kubectl apply plus a follow-up kubectl patch caused poolmgr to schedule a privileged pod with a host-root mount within roughly 20 seconds. From that pod the cluster CA private key was readable, allowing the attacker to sign
arbitrary kubelet certificates and achieve full cluster takeover.

Impact

environments.fission.io create/update RBAC is escalated to node escape and, via the readable cluster CA key, full cluster takeover.

Fix

Fixed in #3391 (with the companion buildermgr SA-token fix in #3390) and released in
v1.24.0. Each enumerated flaw is addressed:

  1. ValidateValidatePodSpecSafety is called from Environment.Validate for both Runtime.PodSpec and Builder.PodSpec.
  2. UPDATE bypass — the webhook marker is extended to verbs=create;update; chart and envtest manifests are aligned.
  3. Merge propagation — host namespaces, ServiceAccountName, and hostPath volumes are stripped at the merge layer; per-container privileged/allowPrivilegeEscalation and dangerous capabilities are sanitized.

See GHSA-gx55-f84r-v3r7 for the detailed fix — both advisories close to the same commit.

Duplicate handling

This advisory and GHSA-gx55-f84r-v3r7 were reported separately but close to the same code fix. Both are published to acknowledge each reporter's contribution and to keep the public CVE record clear about the multi-layer nature of the
issue.

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.
(22nd 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-2026-50545

GHSA ID

GHSA-wmgg-3p4h-48x7

Source code

Credits

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