BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-50149High confidence

Contour has Improper JWT Verification for Non-SNI Requests on Virtual Hosts with Fallback Certificate Enabled

projectcontour · contour

6.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Scheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Mitigation available
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-2026-50149 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitygithub.com/projectcontour/contour: Contour: JWT verification bypass allows unauthorized access via HTTPProxy misconfiguration
3 known affected

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

  • edo/external-dns-rhel8 as a component of ExternalDNS Operator
  • edo/external-dns-rhel9 as a component of ExternalDNS Operator
  • openshift4/ose-contour-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4
Summary
A flaw was found in Contour. When an HTTPProxy is configured with both a fallback certificate and JWT (JSON Web Token) providers, Contour does not properly enforce JWT verification. This allows remote attackers to bypass security checks by sending requests without a valid token, specifically when clients do not provide a TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) or provide an unrecognized SNI. The consequence is unauthorized access to upstream services and potential information disclosure.
Remediation
Upgrade to Contour v1.33.5 or later. As a workaround, do not enable enableFallbackCertificate on HTTPProxy resources that also define jwtProviders.
Optional official sources

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

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

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-2026-62414

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. In versions 1.23.0 through 1.33.4, when an `HTTPProxy` is configured with incompatible combination of both `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` and `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`, Contour does not reject the configuration. Consequently, requests from clients that do not send TLS SNI or send an unrecognized SNI (one that does not match any `HTTPProxy` FQDN) bypass configured JWT verification and are proxied to upstream services without a valid token. This issue is fixed in Contour v1.33.5. Contour now rejects and marks invalid any `HTTPProxy` resources that combine `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` with `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Affected resources will receive a status condition with the error reason `TLSIncompatibleFeatures`. As a workaround, do not enable `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate` on `HTTPProxy` resources that also define `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Remove one of the two settings to avoid the invalid configuration.

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
6.5 · CVSS 3.1
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionScheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Mitigation available
01

What, why and how

Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. In versions 1.23.0 through 1.33.4, when an `HTTPProxy` is configured with incompatible combination of both `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` and `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`, Contour does not reject the configuration. Consequently, requests from clients that do not send TLS SNI or send an unrecognized SNI (one that does not match any `HTTPProxy` FQDN) bypass configured JWT verification and are proxied to upstream services without a valid token. This issue is fixed in Contour v1.33.5. Contour now rejects and marks invalid any `HTTPProxy` resources that combine `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` with `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Affected resources will receive a status condition with the error reason `TLSIncompatibleFeatures`. As a workaround, do not enable `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate` on `HTTPProxy` resources that also define `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Remove one of the two settings to avoid the invalid configuration.

What

Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. In versions 1.23.0 through 1.33.4, when an `HTTPProxy` is configured with incompatible combination of both `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` and `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`, Contour does not reject the configuration. Consequently, requests from clients that do not send TLS SNI or send an unrecognized SNI (one that does not match any `HTTPProxy` FQDN) bypass configured JWT verification and are proxied to upstream services without a valid token. This issue is fixed in Contour v1.33.5. Contour now rejects and marks invalid any `HTTPProxy` resources that combine `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` with `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Affected resources will receive a status condition with the error reason `TLSIncompatibleFeatures`. As a workaround, do not enable `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate` on `HTTPProxy` resources that also define `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Remove one of the two settings to avoid the invalid configuration.

Why

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. In versions 1.23.0 through 1.33.4, when an `HTTPProxy` is configured with incompatible combination of both `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` and `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`, Contour does not reject the configuration. Consequently, requests from clients that do not send TLS SNI or send an unrecognized SNI (one that does not match any `HTTPProxy` FQDN) bypass configured JWT verification and are proxied to upstream services without a valid token. This issue is fixed in Contour v1.33.5. Contour now rejects and marks invalid any `HTTPProxy` resources that combine `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` with `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Affected resources will receive a status condition with the error reason `TLSIncompatibleFeatures`. As a workaround, do not enable `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate` on `HTTPProxy` resources that also define `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Remove one of the two settings to avoid the invalid configuration.

Why

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. 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.
None recorded

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 → Improper Certificate Validation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
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-295 ↗

CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation. The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

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

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

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
NetworkUnauthenticatedCWE-295
A

Official authority intelligence

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

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-62414Official EUVD mapping

Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. In versions 1.23.0 through 1.33.4, when an `HTTPProxy` is configured with incompatible combination of both `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` and `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`, Contour does not reject the configuration. Consequently, requests from clients that do not send TLS SNI or send an unrecognized SNI (one that does not match any `HTTPProxy` FQDN) bypass configured JWT verification and are proxied to upstream services without a valid token. This issue is fixed in Contour v1.33.5. Contour now rejects and marks invalid any `HTTPProxy` resources that combine `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate: true` with `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Affected resources will receive a status condition with the error reason `TLSIncompatibleFeatures`. As a workaround, do not enable `.spec.virtualhost.tls.enableFallbackCertificate` on `HTTPProxy` resources that also define `.spec.virtualhost.jwtProviders`. Remove one of the two settings to avoid the invalid configuration.

Official EUVD record ↗
Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20260826Security Bulletin 26 Aug 2026

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 26 Aug 2026, published on 26 August 2026. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

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.
Mitigation available
Affected
Fixed
No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Action
No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Workaround
Upgrade to Contour v1.33.5 or later. As a workaround, do not enable enableFallbackCertificate on HTTPProxy resources that also define jwtProviders.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 19 Aug 2026 · Last source change 25 Aug 2026, 02:03 UTC · CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation

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 2026-08-23
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-62414
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD received

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

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗
  1. Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
    CNA ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-62414↗Vendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
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-2026-50149 · cve.blacktree.nl