Vulnerable cross-model authorization in juju.
Vulnerable cross-model authorization in juju. If a charm's cross-model permissions are revoked or expire, a malicious user who is able to update database records can mint an invalid macaroon that is incorrectly validated by the juju controller, enabling a charm to maintain otherwise revoked or expired permissions. This allows a charm to continue relating to another charm in a cross-model relation, and use their workload without their permission. No fix is available as of the time of writing.
- Published
- Jan 28, 2026
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.1% · 3th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-347
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
8
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 8 / 40 · 2.1 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.1%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · canonical
- 2.1
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Affected systems
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (canonical). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Canonical juju
- 0affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/juju/juju | up to and including 0.0.0-20260127110037-9b1a0e53a4a4 | — |
| Go | github.com/juju/juju | all versions | — |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.6 | govulncheck-vulndb | before 0.0.20260205T172317-150000.1.146.1 | 0.0.20260205T172317-150000.1.146.1 |
Same product
canonical: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2017-9232Juju before 1.25.12, 2.0.x before 2.0.4, and 2.1.x before 2.1.3 uses a UNIX domain socket without setting appropriate permissions, allowing 54Plan
- CVE-2026-4370Improper TLS Client/Server authentication and certificate verification on Database Cluster40Plan
- CVE-2026-32693Unauthorized access to Kubernetes secrets in Juju35Monitor
- CVE-2025-0928Arbitrary executable upload via authenticated endpoint35Monitor
- CVE-2024-7558JUJU_CONTEXT_ID is a predictable authentication secret.32Monitor
- CVE-2015-1316Juju Joyent provider uploads user's private ssh key by default30Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| opensuse:govulncheck-vulndb | 0.0.20260205T172317-150000.1.146.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.6 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone on the same network segment can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- Integrity
- Availability
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-347 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic SignatureCVSS vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
nvd-secondary
Root cause
The verifier takes the algorithm to verify with from the token’s own header. Untrusted data ends up deciding its own verification rule.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-347 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
const claims = jwt.verify(token, publicKey);Fixed
const claims = jwt.verify(token, publicKey, { algorithms: ["RS256"], issuer: "https://id.example.com", audience: "portal",});Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
ATT&CK techniques
—
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.