Skip to content

etcd RBAC bypass allows unauthorized data access via PrevKv/lease attachment in nested transaction Put requests

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 1, 2026 in etcd-io/etcd • Updated May 7, 2026

Package

gomod go.etcd.io/etcd (Go)

Affected versions

<= 3.4.43

Patched versions

3.4.44
gomod go.etcd.io/etcd/v3 (Go)
>= 3.6.0, <= 3.6.10
>= 3.5.0, <= 3.5.29
3.6.11
3.5.30

Description

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?

A vulnerability in etcd allows read access via PrevKv, or lease attachment in Put requests within transaction operations, to bypass RBAC authorization checks. An authenticated user without sufficient read or lease-related permissions may be able to access unauthorized data or attach leases by invoking transaction operations with these features enabled.

Kubernetes does not rely on etcd’s built-in authentication and authorization. Instead, the API server handles authentication and authorization itself, so typical Kubernetes deployments are not affected.

Patches

Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?

This vulnerability is patched in the following versions:

  • etcd 3.6.11
  • etcd 3.5.30
  • etcd 3.4.44

Workarounds

Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?

If upgrading is not immediately possible, reduce exposure by treating the affected
RPCs as unauthenticated in practice.

  • restrict network access to etcd server ports so only trusted components can connect
  • require strong client identity at the transport layer, such as mTLS with tightly scoped client certificate
    distribution

Reporters

Samy Ghannad (@SamyGhannad on Github) reported that read access via PrevKv in a Put request within etcd transactions bypassed RBAC authorization checks. Benjamin Wang (@ahrtr ) further analyzed that lease attachment in a Put request within etcd transactions also bypassed RBAC authorization checks

References

@ahrtr ahrtr published to etcd-io/etcd May 1, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 7, 2026
Reviewed May 7, 2026
Last updated May 7, 2026

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-44283

GHSA ID

GHSA-x35m-3gp4-4fh5

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.