CVE-2026-29777
Traefik ≤ 3.6.10
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-29777 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Traefik Traefik. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 20th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-11201
Vulnerability Data
Traefik is an HTTP reverse proxy and load balancer. Prior to 3.6.10, A tenant with write access to an HTTPRoute resource can inject backtick-delimited rule tokens into Traefik's router rule language via unsanitized header or query parameter match values. In…
more
shared gateway deployments, this can bypass listener hostname constraints and redirect traffic for victim hostnames to attacker-controlled backends. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.6.10.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
CWE-74 injection in public-facing Traefik reverse proxy directly enables exploitation of the gateway to bypass routing constraints.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation and sanitization of untrusted header/query inputs before they are interpreted as router rule tokens, blocking the backtick injection.
Enforces information flow policies so that tenant-supplied match rules cannot bypass listener hostname constraints or redirect traffic to unauthorized backends.
Restricts tenant write privileges on HTTPRoute resources to the minimum set of fields that cannot affect global router rule evaluation.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.