Every CVE Search/ Get API key

CVE-2026-54495

Cross-namespace FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration resolution exposes spec contents on multi-tenant clusters

4.3 Medium

The OpenFeature Operator allows users to expose feature flags to applications. In version 0.9.2 and earlier, a tenant who can create a controller-owned workload can use the openfeature.dev/featureflagsource annotation with NAMESPACE/NAME syntax to reference a FeatureFlagSource or InProcessConfiguration in another namespace. On multi-tenant clusters that use namespaces as trust boundaries, the cluster-scoped operator reads that resource and materializes spec.envVars literal values, spec.httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs, and supporting ConfigMaps into the tenant's workload. Single-tenant clusters are not impacted, secretKeyRef and configMapKeyRef values remain namespace-local, and creating a FeatureFlagSource is not required.

Attack profile

How easy it is to exploit

Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
Low
User interaction
None

What an attacker can affect

Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Exploit likelihood

0.31%Up 0.1 points since Sep 18, 2026
90%50%10%1%

What each source reports

CVE List Score used 4.3

Cross-namespace FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration resolution exposes spec contents on multi-tenant clusters

The OpenFeature Operator allows users to expose feature flags to applications. In version 0.9.2 and earlier, a tenant who can create a controller-owned workload can use the openfeature.dev/featureflagsource annotation with NAMESPACE/NAME syntax to reference a FeatureFlagSource or InProcessConfiguration in another namespace. On multi-tenant clusters that use namespaces as trust boundaries, the cluster-scoped operator reads that resource and materializes spec.envVars literal values, spec.httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs, and supporting ConfigMaps into the tenant's workload. Single-tenant clusters are not impacted, secretKeyRef and configMapKeyRef values remain namespace-local, and creating a FeatureFlagSource is not required.

Record
CVE-2026-54495
CVSS 3.1
4.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-668
Updated
2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2026-82405 4.3

The OpenFeature Operator allows users to expose feature flags to applications. In version 0.9.2 and earlier, a tenant who can create a controller-owned workload can use the openfeature.dev/featureflagsource annotation with NAMESPACE/NAME syntax to reference a FeatureFlagSource or InProcessConfiguration in another namespace. On multi-tenant clusters that use namespaces as trust boundaries, the cluster-scoped operator reads that resource and materializes spec.envVars literal values, spec.httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs, and supporting ConfigMaps into the tenant's workload. Single-tenant clusters are not impacted, secretKeyRef and configMapKeyRef values remain namespace-local, and creating a FeatureFlagSource is not required.

Record
EUVD-2026-82405
CVSS 3.1
4.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Updated
2026-11-02
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p 4.3

open-feature-operator: Cross-namespace FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration resolution exposes spec contents on multi-tenant clusters

Summary

A namespaced FeatureFlagSource or InProcessConfiguration resource can be referenced cross-namespace via the openfeature.dev/featureflagsource annotation using the documented {NAMESPACE}/{NAME} syntax. The operator resolves the referenced resource cluster-wide and materializes its contents (env vars, flagd sidecar arguments including httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs, supporting ConfigMaps) into the referencing workload.

On multi-tenant clusters that treat namespaces as trust boundaries, a tenant who can deploy a controller-owned workload in their own namespace can cause the operator to read another tenant's FeatureFlagSource / InProcessConfiguration spec contents.

Impact

  • Single-tenant clusters: not impacted.
  • Multi-tenant clusters using namespaces as trust boundaries: tenant-to-tenant disclosure of any data placed inline in FeatureFlagSource / InProcessConfiguration spec, including spec.envVars literal values, spec.httpSyncBearerToken, and sync URIs.

Behavior is documented

The cross-namespace {NAMESPACE}/{NAME} annotation syntax is intentional and documented in docs/annotations.md and docs/feature_flag_source.md. The operator's cluster-wide RBAC scope is intentional. Namespace-as-trust-boundary is not part of the operator's current stated security model.

This advisory makes the tenancy assumption explicit and tracks the architectural change that will eliminate the implicit cross-namespace pattern.

Corrections to the original report

Two technical points in the original report require correction:

  1. secretKeyRef / configMapKeyRef cross-namespace disclosure is not possible via this path. Kubelet resolves these as LocalObjectReference against the pod's own namespace; the operator does not bypass that. The actual disclosure surface is FeatureFlagSource / InProcessConfiguration spec contents the operator itself materializes (inline envVars values, httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs).
  2. create featureflagsources is not a prerequisite. The webhook rejects pods without OwnerReferences (pod_webhook.go:75-77), so the prerequisite is create on a workload controller (deployments, statefulsets, daemonsets, jobs, cronjobs, replicasets) in a namespace the attacker controls. FeatureFlagSource create in any namespace is not required.

Mitigations

As with any Kubernetes CRD, treat the spec content of FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration as readable by anyone with read access to the resource, and don't place plaintext secrets in CR spec fields. Fields most likely to bite users:

  • spec.sources[].source, when the URI embeds credentials (e.g. https://user:pass@host/repo)
  • spec.sources[].certPath, if the path itself is sensitive
  • inline spec.envVars[].value (use valueFrom.secretKeyRef instead; kubelet enforces same-namespace resolution and the secret value is not stored in the CR)

If developers treat namespaces as trust boundaries:

  • restrict create on featureflagsources / inprocessconfigurations via RBAC where feasible,

Roadmap

A future release will introduce explicit cluster-scoped CRDs (ClusterFeatureFlagSource, ClusterInProcessConfiguration) and remove implicit cross-namespace resolution. This is a breaking change tracked in #847.

Precedent

This class of issue (authenticated namespace tenant abuses an unenforced cluster-wide surface that crosses an assumed namespace boundary) has Kubernetes precedent: CVE-2020-8554 (External IPs) was accepted as documented posture and mitigated via an opt-in admission plugin.

Credit

Reported by @0xVijay.…

Record
GHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p
CVSS 3.1
4.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-668
Updated
2026-11-02
NVD 4.3

The OpenFeature Operator allows users to expose feature flags to applications. In version 0.9.2 and earlier, a tenant who can create a controller-owned workload can use the openfeature.dev/featureflagsource annotation with NAMESPACE/NAME syntax to reference a FeatureFlagSource or InProcessConfiguration in another namespace. On multi-tenant clusters that use namespaces as trust boundaries, the cluster-scoped operator reads that resource and materializes spec.envVars literal values, spec.httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs, and supporting ConfigMaps into the tenant's workload. Single-tenant clusters are not impacted, secretKeyRef and configMapKeyRef values remain namespace-local, and creating a FeatureFlagSource is not required.

Record
CVE-2026-54495
CVSS 3.1
4.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-668
Updated
2026-11-02
OSV 4.3

Cross-namespace FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration resolution exposes spec contents on multi-tenant clusters

The OpenFeature Operator allows users to expose feature flags to applications. In version 0.9.2 and earlier, a tenant who can create a controller-owned workload can use the openfeature.dev/featureflagsource annotation with NAMESPACE/NAME syntax to reference a FeatureFlagSource or InProcessConfiguration in another namespace. On multi-tenant clusters that use namespaces as trust boundaries, the cluster-scoped operator reads that resource and materializes spec.envVars literal values, spec.httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs, and supporting ConfigMaps into the tenant's workload. Single-tenant clusters are not impacted, secretKeyRef and configMapKeyRef values remain namespace-local, and creating a FeatureFlagSource is not required.

Record
CVE-2026-54495
CVSS 3.1
4.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-668
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p 4.3

open-feature-operator: Cross-namespace FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration resolution exposes spec contents on multi-tenant clusters

Summary

A namespaced FeatureFlagSource or InProcessConfiguration resource can be referenced cross-namespace via the openfeature.dev/featureflagsource annotation using the documented {NAMESPACE}/{NAME} syntax. The operator resolves the referenced resource cluster-wide and materializes its contents (env vars, flagd sidecar arguments including httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs, supporting ConfigMaps) into the referencing workload.

On multi-tenant clusters that treat namespaces as trust boundaries, a tenant who can deploy a controller-owned workload in their own namespace can cause the operator to read another tenant's FeatureFlagSource / InProcessConfiguration spec contents.

Impact

  • Single-tenant clusters: not impacted.
  • Multi-tenant clusters using namespaces as trust boundaries: tenant-to-tenant disclosure of any data placed inline in FeatureFlagSource / InProcessConfiguration spec, including spec.envVars literal values, spec.httpSyncBearerToken, and sync URIs.

Behavior is documented

The cross-namespace {NAMESPACE}/{NAME} annotation syntax is intentional and documented in docs/annotations.md and docs/feature_flag_source.md. The operator's cluster-wide RBAC scope is intentional. Namespace-as-trust-boundary is not part of the operator's current stated security model.

This advisory makes the tenancy assumption explicit and tracks the architectural change that will eliminate the implicit cross-namespace pattern.

Corrections to the original report

Two technical points in the original report require correction:

  1. secretKeyRef / configMapKeyRef cross-namespace disclosure is not possible via this path. Kubelet resolves these as LocalObjectReference against the pod's own namespace; the operator does not bypass that. The actual disclosure surface is FeatureFlagSource / InProcessConfiguration spec contents the operator itself materializes (inline envVars values, httpSyncBearerToken, sync URIs).
  2. create featureflagsources is not a prerequisite. The webhook rejects pods without OwnerReferences (pod_webhook.go:75-77), so the prerequisite is create on a workload controller (deployments, statefulsets, daemonsets, jobs, cronjobs, replicasets) in a namespace the attacker controls. FeatureFlagSource create in any namespace is not required.

Mitigations

As with any Kubernetes CRD, treat the spec content of FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration as readable by anyone with read access to the resource, and don't place plaintext secrets in CR spec fields. Fields most likely to bite users:

  • spec.sources[].source, when the URI embeds credentials (e.g. https://user:pass@host/repo)
  • spec.sources[].certPath, if the path itself is sensitive
  • inline spec.envVars[].value (use valueFrom.secretKeyRef instead; kubelet enforces same-namespace resolution and the secret value is not stored in the CR)

If developers treat namespaces as trust boundaries:

  • restrict create on featureflagsources / inprocessconfigurations via RBAC where feasible,

Roadmap

A future release will introduce explicit cluster-scoped CRDs (ClusterFeatureFlagSource, ClusterInProcessConfiguration) and remove implicit cross-namespace resolution. This is a breaking change tracked in #847.

Precedent

This class of issue (authenticated namespace tenant abuses an unenforced cluster-wide surface that crosses an assumed namespace boundary) has Kubernetes precedent: CVE-2020-8554 (External IPs) was accepted as documented posture and mitigated via an opt-in admission plugin.

Credit

Reported by @0xVijay.…

Record
GHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p
CVSS 3.1
4.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Weakness
CWE-668
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGO-2026-5998 No score

open-feature-operator: Cross-namespace FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration resolution exposes spec contents on multi-tenant clusters in github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator

open-feature-operator: Cross-namespace FeatureFlagSource and InProcessConfiguration resolution exposes spec contents on multi-tenant clusters in github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator

Record
GO-2026-5998
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVopenSUSE-SU-2026:21483-1 No score

Security update for govulncheck-vulndb

This update for govulncheck-vulndb fixes the following issues:

  • Update to version 0.0.20260723T184607 2026-07-23T18:46:07Z (jsc#PED-11136).

Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

  • GO-2026-4730 CVE-2026-33022 GHSA-cv4x-93xx-wgfj
  • GO-2026-4761 CVE-2026-33211 GHSA-j5q5-j9gm-2w5c
  • GO-2026-5102 CVE-2026-45021 GHSA-3vcp-chfh-f6r2
  • GO-2026-5272 CVE-2026-40938 GHSA-94jr-7pqp-xhcq
  • GO-2026-5486 CVE-2026-40924 GHSA-m2cx-gpqf-qf74
  • GO-2026-5542 CVE-2026-40090 GHSA-pj97-4p9w-gx3q
  • GO-2026-5630 CVE-2026-25542 GHSA-rmx9-2pp3-xhcr
  • GO-2026-5643 CVE-2026-40923 GHSA-rx35-6rhx-7858
  • GO-2026-5675 CVE-2026-41492 GHSA-vvf7-6rmr-m29q
  • GO-2026-5711 CVE-2026-40161 GHSA-wjxp-xrpv-xpff
  • GO-2026-5746 CVE-2026-41567 GHSA-x86f-5xw2-fm2r
  • GO-2026-5749 CVE-2026-41328 GHSA-x92x-px7w-4gx4
  • GO-2026-5837 CVE-2026-44840 GHSA-q2m9-6jp9-c6mc
  • GO-2026-5929 CVE-2026-44342 GHSA-26v7-h57m-gh9m
  • GO-2026-5930 CVE-2026-33655 GHSA-6qcr-qxgr-m7fv
  • GO-2026-5933 GHSA-3g4q-2f67-2gvh
  • GO-2026-5934 GHSA-59qp-cfj3-rp64
  • GO-2026-5935 GHSA-7856-g3gv-9wq8
  • GO-2026-5936 CVE-2026-53552 GHSA-26rh-24rg-j3vv
  • GO-2026-5937 CVE-2026-53508 GHSA-2jcc-mxv7-p3f9
  • GO-2026-5938 CVE-2026-53553 GHSA-4g5x-hcwm-82jw
  • GO-2026-5939 CVE-2026-10517 GHSA-698x-9w2p-7vvp
  • GO-2026-5940 CVE-2026-53572 GHSA-6w3m-4hhp-775q
  • GO-2026-5941 CVE-2026-53487 GHSA-gvhc-wv3v-7pf8
  • GO-2026-5942 CVE-2026-46600
  • GO-2026-5944 CVE-2026-50197 GHSA-659f-rgp5-w4wf
  • GO-2026-5945 CVE-2026-6815 GHSA-rmxx-v9rj-vpvg
  • GO-2026-5946 CVE-2026-52831 GHSA-v5px-423j-pf7p
  • GO-2026-5947 CVE-2026-53649 GHSA-xqhv-chqm-fhcc
  • GO-2026-5948 CVE-2026-50554 GHSA-588f-fvcv-xhvf
  • GO-2026-5949 CVE-2026-50553 GHSA-rqrh-8wpv-x7hh
  • GO-2026-5950 CVE-2026-53602 GHSA-339v-266x-79xr
  • GO-2026-5951 CVE-2026-10219 GHSA-6jm8-4fhr-5w64
  • GO-2026-5952 CVE-2026-49834 GHSA-9vcr-p3rj-q5q6
  • GO-2026-5953 CVE-2026-9094 GHSA-c9w5-qp6m-m395
  • GO-2026-5956 CVE-2026-55252 GHSA-h5g6-xmh4-hc37
  • GO-2026-5957 CVE-2026-54158 GHSA-5xfx-xj4h-5p7r
  • GO-2026-5958 CVE-2026-54068 GHSA-gcm7-57gf-953c
  • GO-2026-5959 CVE-2026-54072 GHSA-h29v-hj44-q8cv
  • GO-2026-5961 CVE-2026-54069 GHSA-hvr9-72v2-fff3
  • GO-2026-5962 CVE-2026-54088 GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm
  • GO-2026-5963 CVE-2026-54067 GHSA-mvjr-vv3c-w4qv
  • GO-2026-5964 CVE-2026-54066 GHSA-p4m3-mgmm-c664
  • GO-2026-5965 CVE-2026-54070 GHSA-w7cg-whh7-xp28
  • GO-2026-5966 CVE-2026-54089 GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm
  • GO-2026-5967 CVE-2026-50551 GHSA-56mp-4f3v-fgj2
  • GO-2026-5968 CVE-2026-54174 GHSA-fpg8-7664-jc5q
  • GO-2026-5969 GHSA-g936-7jqj-mwv8
  • GO-2026-5970 CVE-2026-56852
  • GO-2026-5973 CVE-2026-54250 GHSA-jxr7-mqhw-9p98
  • GO-2026-5974 CVE-2026-44300 GHSA-wmj8-9953-vff5
  • GO-2026-5975 CVE-2026-50018 GHSA-42j2-w334-qxw7
  • GO-2026-5976 CVE-2026-50141 GHSA-g7mm-9vx7-jm7h
  • GO-2026-5977 CVE-2026-50013 GHSA-qrh4-p6v4-mrfg
  • GO-2026-5978 CVE-2026-50125 GHSA-qw5r-ppcg-f8rj
  • GO-2026-5979 CVE-2026-50006 GHSA-xrcf-6jh3-ggvx
  • GO-2026-5980 CVE-2026-50158 GHSA-2c7f-fxww-6w6c
  • GO-2026-5981 GHSA-mqxv-9rm6-w8qc
  • GO-2026-5982 GHSA-pqg7-v6wh-3pfp
  • GO-2026-5984 CVE-2026-53604 GHSA-2p2f-px33-4vv5
  • GO-2026-5985 GHSA-7rx3-5wx3-5v76
  • GO-2026-5986 CVE-2026-61699 GHSA-cm26-5974-52h8
  • GO-2026-5987 CVE-2026-55513 GHSA-g4x6-jcvr-9m3g
  • GO-2026-5988 CVE-2026-54628 GHSA-hwrq-8wxh-q4xv
  • GO-2026-5989 CVE-2026-55512 GHSA-m3cx-mwpg-32jg
  • GO-2026-5990 CVE-2026-54629 GHSA-mf78-3rpf-r784
  • GO-2026-5991 CVE-2026-53603 GHSA-q4vm-pq3q-8wgq
  • GO-2026-5992 CVE-2026-61549 GHSA-qf34-295c-26v8
  • GO-2026-5996 CVE-2026-54450 GHSA-pph6-vfjv-vpjw
  • GO-2026-5997 CVE-2026-54452 GHSA-xgch-x3mx-cm3c
  • GO-2026-5998 CVE-2026-54495 GHSA-398h-7f66-3h4p
  • GO-2026-5999 CVE-2026-10814 GHSA-jh6h-v6mp-h22v
  • GO-2026-6002 CVE-2026-58196 GHSA-pr64-jmmf-jp54
  • GO-2026-6003 CVE-2026-53714 GHSA-22xc-xg2r-9j7v
  • GO-2026-6004 CVE-2026-52833 GHSA-3v79-m2cg-89ww
  • GO-2026-6005 CVE-2026-53715 GHSA-8fv2-88gg-hm7q
  • GO-2026-6006 CVE-2026-53716 GHSA-cxpq-8v7q-cg56 *…
Record
openSUSE-SU-2026:21483-1
Updated
2026-11-02

Affected products

Affected packages

Affected packages
PackageAffectedFixed
github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator
Go
 through 0.9.2 None known
github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator
Go
 All versions None known
govulncheck-vulndb
openSUSE:Leap 16.0
From an advisory covering 1734 CVEs
 before 0.0.20260723T184607-160000.1.1
0.0.20260723T184607-160000.1.1

History

History
RecordedChangedSources
affected, facts
first indexedCVE List, EUVD, GitHub Advisories, NVD, OSV

Dates are when Every CVE recorded each change. Upstream dates may differ.

In short

CVE-2026-54495 is a medium vulnerability (CVSS 4.3) in Open-feature Open-feature-operator, published July 15, 2026. No source lists public exploit code. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.31%, the 23rd percentile. No source names a fixed version.

References

Show 194 moreShow less
This page doesn't list everything

Left out here: 1,540 references and the rest of 3 source descriptions. The JSON record has them.

Pages All vulnerabilities Browse Docs Sources Guide Get API key
MoveEnter Open