CVE-2026-3288
Kubernetes Ingress-Nginx ≤ 1.13.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-3288 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Kubernetes Ingress-Nginx. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 7% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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-2026-3288, published on 2026-03-09, is a vulnerability in the ingress-nginx controller for Kubernetes. It stems from improper handling of the `nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/rewrite-target` Ingress annotation, which allows attackers to inject arbitrary configuration into the underlying nginx process. This can result in arbitrary code execution within the context of the ingress-nginx controller pod, as well as disclosure of Kubernetes Secrets accessible to the controller. In default installations, the controller has cluster-wide read access to all Secrets. The issue is rated at CVSS v3.1 score 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and maps to CWE-20: Improper Input Validation.
Exploitation requires low privileges, specifically the ability to create or modify Ingress resources in a targeted namespace, and can be performed remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction. A successful attack grants arbitrary code execution as the ingress-nginx controller, enabling high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts. Attackers can also exfiltrate sensitive Secrets, potentially exposing cluster-wide credentials in default configurations.
Advisories and related resources, including the Kubernetes issue tracker (https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/137560), OSS-Security mailing list (http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/03/09/8), and a proof-of-concept lab (https://github.com/bvabhishek/CVE-2026-3288-lab), provide further details on the issue and potential mitigations.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10360
Vulnerability Data
A security issue was discovered in ingress-nginx where the `nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/rewrite-target` Ingress annotation can be used to inject configuration into nginx. This can lead to arbitrary code execution in the context of the ingress-nginx controller, and disclosure of Secrets accessible to…
more
the controller. (Note that in the default installation, the controller can access all Secrets cluster-wide.)
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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 and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20