BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-22703High confidence

Cosign verification accepts any valid Rekor entry under certain conditions

sigstore · cosign

Official source article: GitHub GHSA-WHQX-F9J3-CH6M ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.

5.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix

Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 36 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityMediumOperational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
  • Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
  • EPSS is 0.11% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
  • Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
  • Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs sigstore cosign and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: As exposure requiresRemediation target: Within 365 days

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Cross-source reconciliation

Remediation availability differs by product scope

Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 36 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Distribution package intelligence

Release-specific package status

Alpine, Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.

4 package states
Package result overrides the generic status

BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 1 affected package state shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.

Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Distribution releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Alpine v3.23v3.23 · communitycosignVendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected.2.6.3-r0Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 11 Sep 2026
Debian trixietrixie · sourcecosignAffected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open.Not published in this feedDebian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Debian forkyforky · sourcecosignVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.2.6.2-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Debian sidsid · sourcecosignVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.2.6.2-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Open-source package ranges4 source-attributed ranges

These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.

Ecosystem and packageAffected rangeFirst fixed versionEvidence
Gogithub.com/sigstore/cosign/v2SEMVER: introduced 0; fixed 2.6.22.6.2OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026
Gogithub.com/sigstore/cosign/v3SEMVER: introduced 0; fixed 3.0.43.0.4OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026
gogithub.com/sigstore/cosign/v2<= 2.6.12.6.2GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 13 Jan 2026
gogithub.com/sigstore/cosign/v3<= 3.0.33.0.4GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 13 Jan 2026
Direct vendor intelligence

Authoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories

Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.

1 current
CVE-2026-22703 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitygithub.com/sigstore/cosign: Cosign verification accepts any valid Rekor entry under certain conditions
35 known affected

The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.

  • openshift-pipelines-client.src as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-chains-controller-rhel8 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-chains-controller-rhel9 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-cli-tkn-rhel8 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-cli-tkn-rhel9 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-opc-rhel9 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-operator-bundle as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-operator-proxy-rhel8 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-operator-proxy-rhel9 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-operator-webhook-rhel8 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-operator-webhook-rhel9 as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
  • openshift-pipelines/pipelines-rhel8-operator as a component of OpenShift Pipelines
Summary
A data verification flaw has been discovered in the golang cosign library. A Cosign bundle can be crafted to successfully verify an artifact even if the embedded Rekor entry does not reference the artifact's digest, signature or public key. When verifying a Rekor entry, Cosign verifies the Rekor entry signature, and also compares the artifact's digest, the user's public key from either a Fulcio certificate or provided by the user, and the artifact signature to the Rekor entry contents. Without these comparisons, Cosign would accept any response from Rekor as valid. A malicious actor that has compromised a user's identity or signing key could construct a valid Cosign bundle by including any arbitrary Rekor entry, thus preventing the user from being able to audit the signing event. This vulnerability only affects users that provide a trusted root via --trusted-root or when fetched automatically from a TUF repository, when no trusted key material is provided via SIGSTORE_REKOR_PUBLIC_KEY. When using the default flag values in Cosign v3 to sign and verify (--use-signing-config=true and --new-bundle-format=true for signing, --new-bundle-format=true for verification), users are unaffected. Cosign v2 users are affected using the default flag values.
Remediation
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2026-1868

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionPatch only the product branches with a verified fix

Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 36 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
01

What, why and how

Cosign provides code signing and transparency for containers and binaries. Prior to versions 2.6.2 and 3.0.4, Cosign bundle can be crafted to successfully verify an artifact even if the embedded Rekor entry does not reference the artifact's digest, signature or public key. When verifying a Rekor entry, Cosign verifies the Rekor entry signature, and also compares the artifact's digest, the user's public key from either a Fulcio certificate or provided by the user, and the artifact signature to the Rekor entry contents. Without these comparisons, Cosign would accept any response from Rekor as valid. A malicious actor that has compromised a user's identity or signing key could construct a valid Cosign bundle by including any arbitrary Rekor entry, thus preventing the user from being able to audit the signing event. This issue has been patched in versions 2.6.2 and 3.0.4.

What

Cosign provides code signing and transparency for containers and binaries. Prior to versions 2.6.2 and 3.0.4, Cosign bundle can be crafted to successfully verify an artifact even if the embedded Rekor entry does not reference the artifact's digest, signature or public key. When verifying a Rekor entry, Cosign verifies the Rekor entry signature, and also compares the artifact's digest, the user's public key from either a Fulcio certificate or provided by the user, and the artifact signature to the Rekor entry contents. Without these comparisons, Cosign would accept any response from Rekor as valid. A malicious actor that has compromised a user's identity or signing key could construct a valid Cosign bundle by including any arbitrary Rekor entry, thus preventing the user from being able to audit the signing event. This issue has been patched in versions 2.6.2 and 3.0.4.

Why

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

Cosign provides code signing and transparency for containers and binaries. Prior to versions 2.6.2 and 3.0.4, Cosign bundle can be crafted to successfully verify an artifact even if the embedded Rekor entry does not reference the artifact's digest, signature or public key. When verifying a Rekor entry, Cosign verifies the Rekor entry signature, and also compares the artifact's digest, the user's public key from either a Fulcio certificate or provided by the user, and the artifact signature to the Rekor entry contents. Without these comparisons, Cosign would accept any response from Rekor as valid. A malicious actor that has compromised a user's identity or signing key could construct a valid Cosign bundle by including any arbitrary Rekor entry, thus preventing the user from being able to audit the signing event. This issue has been patched in versions 2.6.2 and 3.0.4.

Why

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
Reference recorded

A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.

Likely attack path
local access → Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-345 ↗

CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
CWE-345Public exploit reference
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20260114Security Bulletin 14 Jan 2026

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 14 Jan 2026, published on 14 January 2026. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0315Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

cord?id=CVE-2026-2005 Référence CVE CVE-2026-2006 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-2006 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21637 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21637 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21925 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21925 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21932 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21932 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21933 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21933 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21945 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21945 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22701 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22701 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22702 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22702 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22703 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22703 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22795 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22795 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22796 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22796 Référence CVE CVE-2026-2297 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-2297 Référence CVE CVE-2026-23831 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23831 Référence CVE CVE-2026-24117 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-24117 Référence CVE CVE-2026-24137 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-24137 Référence CVE CVE-2026-24733 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-24733 Référence CVE CVE-2026-25679 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CV

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0209Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

cord?id=CVE-2026-1485 Référence CVE CVE-2026-1489 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-1489 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21226 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21226 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21441 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21441 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21925 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21925 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21932 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21932 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21933 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21933 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21945 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21945 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22695 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22695 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22703 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22703 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22795 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22795 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22796 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22796 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22801 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22801 Référence CVE CVE-2026-23490 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23490 Référence CVE CVE-2026-23949 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23949 Référence CVE CVE-2026-24515 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-24515 Référence CVE CVE-2026-24733 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-24733 Référence CVE CVE-2026-25210 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2026-AVI-0199Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

d?id=CVE-2026-21936 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21937 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21937 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21941 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21941 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21945 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21945 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21947 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21947 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21948 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21948 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21964 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21964 Référence CVE CVE-2026-21968 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21968 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22695 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22695 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22703 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22703 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22719 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22719 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22720 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22720 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22721 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22721 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22795 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22795 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22796 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22796 Référence CVE CVE-2026-22801 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22801 Référence CVE CVE-2026-23490 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23490 Référence CVE CVE-2026-23949 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory ↗
JVN iPedia · Japanese · JVNDB-2026-002873sigstoreのcosignにおけるデータの信頼性についての不十分な検証に関する脆弱性

Cosignはコンテナおよびバイナリのコード署名と透過性を提供します。バージョン2.6.2および3.0.4以前のCosignでは、埋め込まれたRekorエントリがアーティファクトのダイジェスト、署名、または公開鍵を参照していなくても、Cosignバンドルがアーティファクトの検証に成功するように作成される可能性がありました。Rekorエントリを検証する際、CosignはRekorエントリの署名を検証し、さらにアーティファクトのダイジェスト、Fulcio証明書またはユーザー提供の公開鍵、アーティファクト署名をRekorエントリの内容と比較します。これらの比較がなければ、CosignはRekorからの任意の応答を有効だと見なしてしまいます。攻撃者がユーザーのIDまたは署名鍵を侵害した場合、任意のRekorエントリを含めることで有効なCosignバンドルを構築でき、ユーザーが署名イベントの監査を行うことを妨げる可能性があります。この問題はバージョン2.6.2および3.0.4で修正されました。

Official advisory ↗
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Fix availability varies by product
Affected
Fixed
An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
Action
Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
Workaround
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 10 Jan 2026 · Last source change 12 Jan 2026, 16:43 UTC · CWE-345 · Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-1868
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2026-22703 · cve.blacktree.nl