Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.79% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-27112High confidence
Kargo has an Authorization Bypass Vulnerability in Batch Resource Creation API Endpoints
akuity · kargo
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-7G9X-CP9G-92MR ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
9.4CriticalCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Patch availableCritical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs akuity kargo and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Open-source package ranges3 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 package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gogithub.com/akuity/kargo | >= 1.9.0-rc.1, < 1.9.3 | 1.9.3 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 2 Mar 2026 |
| gogithub.com/akuity/kargo | >= 1.8.0-rc.1, < 1.8.11 | 1.8.11 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 2 Mar 2026 |
| gogithub.com/akuity/kargo | >= 1.7.0, < 1.7.8 | 1.7.8 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 2 Mar 2026 |
Critical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Kargo manages and automates the promotion of software artifacts. From 1.7.0 to before v1.7.8, v1.8.11, and v1.9.3, the batch resource creation endpoints of both Kargo's legacy gRPC API and newer REST API accept multi-document YAML payloads. Specially crafted payloads can manifest a bug present in the logic of both endpoints to inject arbitrary resources (of specific types only) into the underlying namespace of an existing Project using the API server's own permissions when that behavior was not intended. Critically, an attacker may exploit this as a vector for elevating their own permissions, which can then be leveraged to achieve remote code execution or secret exfiltration. Exfiltrated artifact repository credentials can be leveraged, in turn, to execute further attacks. In some configurations of the Kargo control plane's underlying Kubernetes cluster, elevated permissions may additionally be leveraged to achieve remote code execution or secret exfiltration using kubectl. This can reduce the complexity of the attack, however, worst case scenarios remain entirely achievable even without this. This vulnerability is fixed in v1.7.8, v1.8.11, and v1.9.3.
What
Kargo manages and automates the promotion of software artifacts. From 1.7.0 to before v1.7.8, v1.8.11, and v1.9.3, the batch resource creation endpoints of both Kargo's legacy gRPC API and newer REST API accept multi-document YAML payloads. Specially crafted payloads can manifest a bug present in the logic of both endpoints to inject arbitrary resources (of specific types only) into the underlying namespace of an existing Project using the API server's own permissions when that behavior was not intended. Critically, an attacker may exploit this as a vector for elevating their own permissions, which can then be leveraged to achieve remote code execution or secret exfiltration. Exfiltrated artifact repository credentials can be leveraged, in turn, to execute further attacks. In some configurations of the Kargo control plane's underlying Kubernetes cluster, elevated permissions may additionally be leveraged to achieve remote code execution or secret exfiltration using kubectl. This can reduce the complexity of the attack, however, worst case scenarios remain entirely achievable even without this. This vulnerability is fixed in v1.7.8, v1.8.11, and v1.9.3.
Why
The application performs an authorisation check, but it does not correctly enforce the required permission boundary.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
Kargo manages and automates the promotion of software artifacts. From 1.7.0 to before v1.7.8, v1.8.11, and v1.9.3, the batch resource creation endpoints of both Kargo's legacy gRPC API and newer REST API accept multi-document YAML payloads. Specially crafted payloads can manifest a bug present in the logic of both endpoints to inject arbitrary resources (of specific types only) into the underlying namespace of an existing Project using the API server's own permissions when that behavior was not intended. Critically, an attacker may exploit this as a vector for elevating their own permissions, which can then be leveraged to achieve remote code execution or secret exfiltration. Exfiltrated artifact repository credentials can be leveraged, in turn, to execute further attacks. In some configurations of the Kargo control plane's underlying Kubernetes cluster, elevated permissions may additionally be leveraged to achieve remote code execution or secret exfiltration using kubectl. This can reduce the complexity of the attack, however, worst case scenarios remain entirely achievable even without this. This vulnerability is fixed in v1.7.8, v1.8.11, and v1.9.3.
Why
The application performs an authorisation check, but it does not correctly enforce the required permission boundary.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.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 None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Incorrect Authorization → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-863 ↗
CWE-863: 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.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCHighSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SIHighSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SAHighSubsequent-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
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. - Patch available
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 20 Feb 2026 · Last source change 24 Feb 2026, 18:43 UTC · CWE-863 · Incorrect Authorization
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-7785
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
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.