Skip to content

Capsule has an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-22872: TenantResource RawItems and Generators still allow cluster-scoped resource creation (cross-tenant privilege escalation)

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 8, 2026 in projectcapsule/capsule

Package

gomod github.com/projectcapsule/capsule (Go)

Affected versions

>= 0.13.0, <= 0.13.7

Patched versions

0.13.8

Description

Summary

CVE-2026-22872 (GHSA-qjjm-7j9w-pw72) reported that a Tenant Owner could create cluster-scoped resources
(e.g. ClusterRole, ValidatingWebhookConfiguration) through a TenantResource, because the controller
applies them with its cluster-admin ServiceAccount and SetNamespace is ineffective for cluster-scoped
kinds. The v0.13.0 fix added a cluster-scope rejection guard, but only on the NamespacedItems selection
path
(ResourceReference.LoadResources -> IsNamespacedGVK, error "cluster-scoped kind ... is not allowed"). The RawItems create path — the exact vector the original advisory named — and the Generators
path were not given this guard.
The vulnerability therefore persists in all releases v0.13.0 through
v0.13.7
and on trunk HEAD (8d89d6865d).

Details

TenantResource reconcile flow:

  • internal/controllers/resources/namespaced.go reconcile() obtains the apply client via loadClient();
    by default (impersonation off, no Spec.ServiceAccount) this is the manager client whose SA is bound to
    cluster-admin (charts/capsule/templates/rbac.yaml:488-501, {fullname}-manager-rolebinding ->
    roleRef cluster-admin).
  • Collector.Collect() (collect.go) processes spec.RawItems via handleRawItem and spec.Generators
    via handleGeneratorItem.

handleRawItem (collect.go:406-425, trunk HEAD — byte-identical to v0.13.0):

tmplString := tpl.FastTemplate(string(item.Raw), opts.Iterator.FastContext)
obj := &unstructured.Unstructured{}
unstructured.UnstructuredJSONScheme.Decode([]byte(tmplString), nil, obj)
if ns != nil { obj.SetNamespace(ns.Name) }   // ONLY mitigation
return obj, nil                                // NO IsNamespacedGVK / allowClusterScoped guard

handleGeneratorItem (collect.go:382-404) is the same: it only SetNamespaces on rendered objects.

The accumulated objects flow to pkg/api/processor/processor_func.go Reconcile() -> Apply() ->
clt.PatchApply(ctx, c, obj, ...) (line 167/378) with no scope check at any point.

By contrast, CollectNamespacedItems (collect.go:308) calls item.LoadResources(..., allowClusterScoped=false),
and pkg/template/reference.go:105-107 enforces:

if !allowClusterScoped && !isNamespaced {
    return nil, fmt.Errorf("cluster-scoped kind %s/%s is not allowed", ...)
}

So the guard the fix added is real, but it sits on a different (selection) path than the one the CVE
described (RawItems create path). For cluster-scoped kinds, SetNamespace is ignored by the Kubernetes API
server, so the object is created cluster-wide by the cluster-admin client.

Parent-fix diff confirmation: in v0.12.4 the RawItems handler in processor.go was the vulnerable code
(obj.SetNamespace(ns.Name) then createOrUpdate via r.client). v0.13.0 refactored this into
collect.go handleRawItem but left it without the new guard.

Proof of Concept

A self-contained in-process Go test (incompletefix_poc_test.go), run against trunk HEAD with go1.26.4,
proves the asymmetry:

  • TestRawItemPath_NoClusterScopeGuard: feeds a ClusterRole rawItem to handleRawItem -> object returned
    unchanged, no rejection (PASS).
  • TestNamespacedItemsPath_HasClusterScopeGuard: feeds the same ClusterRole kind to
    LoadResources(allowClusterScoped=false) -> rejected with
    "cluster-scoped kind rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1/ClusterRole is not allowed" (PASS).
VULNERABLE: RawItems path accepted cluster-scoped rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1/ClusterRole;
            metadata.namespace="tenant-ns" (ignored by API server for cluster-scoped kinds)
GUARDED:    NamespacedItems path correctly rejected cluster-scoped kind:
            cluster-scoped kind rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1/ClusterRole is not allowed

End-to-end (cluster) reproduction:

  1. Deploy capsule (default Helm) with rbac.resources.create=true (the opt-in that exposes TenantResources
    to tenant owners; the configuration the original CVE applies to).
  2. As a Tenant Owner, create in a tenant namespace:
    apiVersion: capsule.clastix.io/v1beta2
    kind: TenantResource
    metadata: {name: pwn, namespace: <tenant-ns>}
    spec:
      resources:
        - namespaceSelector: {matchLabels: {capsule.clastix.io/tenant: <tenant>}}
          rawItems:
            - apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
              kind: ClusterRole
              metadata: {name: tenant-escalation}
              rules: [{apiGroups: ["*"], resources: ["*"], verbs: ["*"]}]
  3. Observe the cluster-scoped ClusterRole tenant-escalation is created by the cluster-admin controller,
    despite the tenant owner lacking cluster RBAC to create it. Swap in ValidatingWebhookConfiguration
    to intercept/exfiltrate cluster-wide Secrets.

Impact

A Tenant Owner (namespace-scoped) escalates to cluster-admin-equivalent privileges and can compromise all
tenants and the cluster control plane. Identical impact to CVE-2026-22872; the v0.13.0 remediation does not
close the RawItems/Generators vector.

Remediation

Apply the same IsNamespacedGVK / allowClusterScoped rejection inside handleRawItem and
handleGeneratorItem — or centrally in Collector.AddToAccumulation / processor.Apply — so the create
path enforces the same cluster-scope policy as the selection path. (GlobalTenantResource shares the path
but is not a privesc — cluster-admin-only to create.)

References

@oliverbaehler oliverbaehler published to projectcapsule/capsule Jul 8, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 30, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 31, 2026
Reviewed Jul 31, 2026

Severity

Moderate

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
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

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:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(9th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor. Learn more on MITRE.

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-2026-65835

GHSA ID

GHSA-jr6p-8pjj-mfx6

Credits

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