GHSA-7CCV-RP6M-RFFR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-21 17:26 – Updated: 2026-04-21 17:26Background
OpenBao's Certificate authentication method, when a token renewal is requested and disable_binding=true is set, attempts to verify the current request's presented mTLS certificate matches the original. Token renewals for other authentication methods do not require any supplied login information.
Impact
Due to incorrect matching, the certificate authentication method would allow renewal of tokens for which the attacker had a sibling certificate+key signed by the same CA, but which did not necessarily match the original role or the originally supplied certificate. This implies an attacker could still authenticate to OpenBao in a similar scope, however, token renewal implies that an attacker may be able to extend the lifetime of dynamic leases held by the original token. This attack requires knowledge of either the original token or its accessor.
This vulnerability is originally from HashiCorp Vault.
Patches
This has been addressed in v2.5.3.
Workarounds
Ensure privileged roles are tightly scoped to single certificates.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/openbao/openbao"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260420160924-abe84e1af4c3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39388"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-21T17:26:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-21T01:16:06Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Background\n\nOpenBao\u0027s Certificate authentication method, when a token renewal is requested and `disable_binding=true` is set, attempts to verify the current request\u0027s presented mTLS certificate matches the original. Token renewals for other authentication methods do not require any supplied login information.\n\n### Impact\n\nDue to incorrect matching, the certificate authentication method would allow renewal of tokens for which the attacker had a sibling certificate+key signed by the same CA, but which did not necessarily match the original role or the originally supplied certificate. This implies an attacker could still authenticate to OpenBao in a similar scope, however, token renewal implies that an attacker may be able to extend the lifetime of dynamic leases held by the original token. This attack requires knowledge of either the original token or its accessor. \n\nThis vulnerability is originally from HashiCorp Vault.\n\n### Patches\n\nThis has been addressed in v2.5.3.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nEnsure privileged roles are tightly scoped to single certificates.",
"id": "GHSA-7ccv-rp6m-rffr",
"modified": "2026-04-21T17:26:42Z",
"published": "2026-04-21T17:26:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openbao/openbao/security/advisories/GHSA-7ccv-rp6m-rffr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39388"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openbao/openbao/pull/2932"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openbao/openbao/commit/9ab7a066826cc544c30e8b203f8f472076f366e1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openbao/openbao"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openbao/openbao/releases/tag/v2.5.3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenBao\u0027s Certificate Authentication Allows Token Renewal With Different Certificate"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
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.