CVE-2026-50149 (GCVE-0-2026-50149)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-19 14:16 – Updated: 2026-08-19 14:16
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Contour has Improper JWT Verification for Non-SNI Requests on Virtual Hosts with Fallback Certificate Enabled
Summary
Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. In versions 1.23.0 through 1.33.4, when an `HTTPProxy` is configured with incompatible combination of both `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` and `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`, Contour does not reject the configuration. Consequently, requests from clients that do not send TLS SNI or send an unrecognized SNI (one that does not match any `HTTPProxy` FQDN) bypass configured JWT verification and are proxied to upstream services without a valid token. This issue is fixed in Contour v1.33.5. Contour now rejects and marks invalid any `HTTPProxy` resources that combine `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` with `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Affected resources will receive a status condition with the error reason `TLSIncompatibleFeatures`. As a workaround, do not enable `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate` on `HTTPProxy` resources that also define `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Remove one of the two settings to avoid the invalid configuration.
Severity
6.5 (Medium)
CWE
- CWE-295 - Improper Certificate Validation
Assigner
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/projectcontour/contour/securit… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | CPE status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| projectcontour | contour |
Affected:
>= 1.23.0, < 1.33.5
|
guessed |
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "contour",
"vendor": "projectcontour",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 1.23.0, \u003c 1.33.5"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. In versions 1.23.0 through 1.33.4, when an `HTTPProxy` is configured with incompatible combination of both `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` and `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`, Contour does not reject the configuration. Consequently, requests from clients that do not send TLS SNI or send an unrecognized SNI (one that does not match any `HTTPProxy` FQDN) bypass configured JWT verification and are proxied to upstream services without a valid token. This issue is fixed in Contour v1.33.5. Contour now rejects and marks invalid any `HTTPProxy` resources that combine `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` with `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Affected resources will receive a status condition with the error reason `TLSIncompatibleFeatures`. As a workaround, do not enable `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate` on `HTTPProxy` resources that also define `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Remove one of the two settings to avoid the invalid configuration."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-295",
"description": "CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-19T14:16:21.476Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/projectcontour/contour/security/advisories/GHSA-g3xr-5w5j-w4q4",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/projectcontour/contour/security/advisories/GHSA-g3xr-5w5j-w4q4"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-g3xr-5w5j-w4q4",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Contour has Improper JWT Verification for Non-SNI Requests on Virtual Hosts with Fallback Certificate Enabled"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-50149",
"datePublished": "2026-08-19T14:16:21.476Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-06-03T20:54:20.431Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-19T14:16:21.476Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2026-50149",
"date": "2026-08-22",
"epss": "0.00147",
"percentile": "0.04478"
},
"nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2026-50149\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"security-advisories@github.com\",\"published\":\"2026-08-19T15:17:08.710\",\"lastModified\":\"2026-08-19T15:17:08.710\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Received\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. In versions 1.23.0 through 1.33.4, when an `HTTPProxy` is configured with incompatible combination of both `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` and `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`, Contour does not reject the configuration. Consequently, requests from clients that do not send TLS SNI or send an unrecognized SNI (one that does not match any `HTTPProxy` FQDN) bypass configured JWT verification and are proxied to upstream services without a valid token. This issue is fixed in Contour v1.33.5. Contour now rejects and marks invalid any `HTTPProxy` resources that combine `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` with `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Affected resources will receive a status condition with the error reason `TLSIncompatibleFeatures`. As a workaround, do not enable `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate` on `HTTPProxy` resources that also define `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Remove one of the two settings to avoid the invalid configuration.\"}],\"affected\":[{\"source\":\"security-advisories@github.com\",\"affectedData\":[{\"vendor\":\"projectcontour\",\"product\":\"contour\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"\u003e= 1.23.0, \u003c 1.33.5\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]}]}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"security-advisories@github.com\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N\",\"baseScore\":6.5,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"HIGH\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"scope\":\"UNCHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"integrityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"NONE\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":2.2,\"impactScore\":4.2}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"security-advisories@github.com\",\"type\":\"Primary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-295\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/projectcontour/contour/security/advisories/GHSA-g3xr-5w5j-w4q4\",\"source\":\"security-advisories@github.com\"}]}}"
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Loading…
Loading…