CVE-2026-50149 (GCVE-0-2026-50149)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-19 14:16 – Updated: 2026-08-19 14:16
VLAI
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.
CWE
  • CWE-295 - Improper Certificate Validation
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version CPE status
projectcontour contour Affected: >= 1.23.0, < 1.33.5
guessed Create a notification for this product.
Show details on NVD website

{
  "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\"}]}}"
  }
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

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…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…