CVE-2026-116472Kubernetes ingress-nginx improper input validation
CVE-2026-116472 is a improper input validation in Kubernetes ingress-nginx, rated low (2.7 on CVSS 3.1).
Why this priority: Low severity, with no exploitation signal.
Published · Updated · NVD status: Awaiting Analysis
What it is
The software trusts input it should check, so crafted values reach code that assumes they are well formed.
How it is reached
An attacker can exploit it over the network, with an administrator account, and nobody has to click anything.
What an attacker gains
The direct impact is limited: partial access to data or a partial outage. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker drive the component into behaviour its authors did not intend.
Is it being exploited?
There is no public report of exploitation yet. EPSS estimates a 0.41% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, higher than 36% of scored CVEs.
What to do
- Upgrade Kubernetes ingress-nginx to 1.15.2-prime1 or later.
- Until it is patched, review who holds accounts that can reach it.
Description from NVD
A security issue was discovered in ingress-nginx where a user with permission to create an Ingress may be able to cause denial of service of the ingress-nginx data plane, or possibly redirect traffic from other Ingresses. Kubernetes clusters are only affected if they are using ingress-nginx.
Due to a missing check, the mirror-target Ingress annotation can be used to target an unauthenticated configuration API within the ingress-nginx controller, allowing write commands to be submitted. Corrupting the data within that configuration API results in all traffic through ingress-nginx being dropped until an Ingress configuration change or a controller restart causes the data to be recreated correctly.
In principle, this write access could also be used to redirect traffic from other Ingresses controlled by the same ingress-nginx instance. In practice, there is negligible additional risk: such redirection would require privileged information about internal ingress-nginx state, and users can already redirect traffic from other Ingresses controlled by the same ingress-nginx anyway.
What this means for your architecture.
A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.
Components it touches
- Interfaces that accept external input. The flaw sits at the input boundary of the affected component.
Trust boundaries in play
- Authenticated network access. An account is needed, so exposure follows who can sign in: customers, partners or staff.
- At the input boundary of the affected component. An attacker who crosses it can drive the component into behaviour its authors did not intend.
Questions to answer about your own systems
- Where does Kubernetes ingress-nginx run in your systems, and at which version?
- Which of those instances can be reached from the internet or partner networks?
- What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?
Read more
Issue reports
More reading
Sources
- CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
- Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
- Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.