Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-34178

Canonical Lxd 4.12 – 5.0.6

Public PoC
Published
09 April 2026
Modified
22 April 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 9.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0042 35th percentile
Risk Priority 58 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-34178 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Canonical Lxd. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 35th 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 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-2026-34178 is an improper input validation vulnerability (CWE-20) in Canonical LXD versions prior to 6.8. The issue lies in the backup import functionality, where project restrictions are enforced by validating the backup/index.yaml file within a supplied tar archive. However, the instance is actually created using the separate backup/container/backup.yaml file, which is not checked against project restrictions. This discrepancy allows attackers to embed unauthorized configurations in the unchecked file. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity due to its potential for high-impact exploitation.

An authenticated remote attacker with instance-creation permissions in a restricted LXD project can exploit this by crafting a malicious tar archive backup. By placing restricted settings, such as security.privileged=true or raw.lxc directives, into the backup.yaml file while ensuring index.yaml passes validation, the attacker bypasses all project restrictions during import. Successful exploitation enables creation of a privileged container, leading to full host compromise through container escape and arbitrary code execution on the underlying system.

Mitigation is addressed in the referenced GitHub security advisory (GHSA-q96j-3fmm-7fv4) and pull request #17921, which patch the validation logic in LXD 6.8 and later versions. Security practitioners should upgrade to LXD 6.8 or higher and review access controls for instance-creation permissions in restricted projects to prevent exploitation.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

In Canonical LXD before 6.8, the backup import path validates project restrictions against backup/index.yaml in the supplied tar archive but creates the instance from backup/container/backup.yaml, a separate file in the same archive that is never checked against project restrictions. An…

more

authenticated remote attacker with instance-creation permission in a restricted project can craft a backup archive where backup.yaml carries restricted settings such as security.privileged=true or raw.lxc directives, bypassing all project restriction enforcement and allowing full host compromise.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1036.001 Invalid Code Signature Stealth
Adversaries may attempt to mimic features of valid code signatures to increase the chance of deceiving a user, analyst, or tool.
T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-12411Same product: Canonical Lxd
CVE-2026-9640Same product: Canonical Lxd
CVE-2026-28385Same product: Canonical Lxd
CVE-2026-34177Same product: Canonical Lxd
CVE-2026-34179Same product: Canonical Lxd
CVE-2025-54292Same product: Canonical Lxd
CVE-2025-54289Same product: Canonical Lxd
CVE-2024-6219Same product: Canonical Lxd
CVE-2024-29068Same vendor: Canonical
CVE-2024-5138Same vendor: Canonical

Affected Assets

canonical
lxd
4.12 — 5.0.6 · 5.21.0 — 5.21.4 · 6.0 — 6.7

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

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.

finds

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.

prevents

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.

prevents

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.

prevents

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.

prevents

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.

none

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

References