Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-65602 is a medium-severity Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) vulnerability in Traefik Traefik. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 24th 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 AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-47646
Vulnerability Data
Traefik 3.6.0 through 3.6.22 and 3.7.0 through 3.7.6 fail to enforce the crossProviderNamespaces allowlist for IngressRouteTCP service serversTransport references (the allowlist was only enforced for HTTP serversTransport references). A low-privileged Kubernetes user in a namespace not listed in crossProviderNamespaces can…
more
set serversTransport: foo@file on an IngressRouteTCP service, causing Traefik to accept the forbidden cross-provider reference and use a file-provider TCPServersTransport — including privileged backend mTLS client certificates, SPIFFE identity, or PROXY-protocol settings. This is fixed in 3.6.23 and 3.7.7.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly requires correct enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally preventing incorrect checks.
AC-24 ensures access-control decisions are made and applied consistently, reducing the chance of an incorrect authorization result.
A reference monitor that is always invoked and tamper-proof forces every authorization decision through a verified, correct path.
Least-privilege assignments shrink the set of authorizations that must be checked correctly, limiting exposure to flawed checks.
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.
Requiring consistency between access rights and classification plus formal approval steps ensures that the authorization logic correctly distinguishes between entities that should and should not be granted access.
A.5.18's provisioning, revocation, review and adjustment of access rights (incl. before role changes/termination, with segregation and owner approval) directly stops incorrect authorization decisions from being exploitable in the vast majority of cases; the bounded remainder is incorrectness inside the authorization logic itself (e.g. flawed conditional or missing check) rather than rights that were wrongly granted.
A.8.3 directly mandates restricting access to information per policies via configuration, identity/group controls, isolation, and dynamic techniques that enforce correct authorization decisions, addressing most but not all slices of CWE-863 (e.g., remainder in non-access-decision authorization errors like timing or environmental factors).
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-863, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.