CVE-2026-32695
Traefik ≤ 3.6.11
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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-2026-32695 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Traefik Traefik. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 38th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-32695 affects Traefik, an HTTP reverse proxy and load balancer, specifically its Knative provider in versions prior to 3.6.11 and 3.7.0-ea.2. The vulnerability arises from the provider building router rules by interpolating user-controlled values into backtick-delimited rule expressions without escaping. This enables exploitation in Knative `rules[].hosts[]` for host restriction bypass and in `headers[].exact` for rule-syntax injection, classified as CWE-74 with a CVSS score of 7.7 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N).
In multi-tenant clusters, an attacker with low privileges (PR:L) can exploit this over the network (AV:N) with low complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction. For instance, they can inject a rule like `tenant.example.com || Host(`attacker.com`)`, causing the router to serve attacker-controlled hosts instead of enforcing restrictions. This also allows unsafe rule construction via headers, routing unauthorized traffic to victim services and enabling cross-tenant traffic exposure with high confidentiality impact.
Traefik's security advisory (GHSA-67jx-r9pv-98rj) and release notes for versions 3.6.11 and 3.7.0-ea.2 confirm that the patches address the issue by fixing the unsafe interpolation in rule expressions. Practitioners should upgrade affected Traefik deployments to these versions or later to mitigate the vulnerability.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-16606
Vulnerability Data
Traefik is an HTTP reverse proxy and load balancer. Prior to versions 3.6.11 and 3.7.0-ea.2, Traefik's Knative provider builds router rules by interpolating user-controlled values into backtick-delimited rule expressions without escaping. In live cluster validation, Knative `rules[].hosts[]` was exploitable for…
more
host restriction bypass (for example `tenant.example.com`) || Host(`attacker.com`), producing a router that serves attacker-controlled hosts. Knative `headers[].exact` also allows rule-syntax injection and proves unsafe rule construction. In multi-tenant clusters, this can route unauthorized traffic to victim services and lead to cross-tenant traffic exposure. Versions 3.6.11 and 3.7.0-ea.2 patch the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
Security engineering principles include requirements for safe construction and sanitization of dynamic statements, structurally preventing expression-language injection at design time.
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.