CVE-2026-27900: Terraform Provider Debug Logs Vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 30/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.52% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: github.com/linode/terraform-provider-linode/v3 (Go) 3.9.0.
- Severity is disputed: the assigning authority (CNA) scores it 5.0, NVD 7.7.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to github.com/linode/terraform-provider-linode/v3 (Go) 3.9.0 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
The Terraform Provider for Linode versions prior to v3.9.0 logged sensitive information including some passwords, StackScript content, and object storage data in debug logs without redaction. Provider debug logging is not enabled by default. This issue is exposed when debug/provider logs are explicitly enabled (for example in local troubleshooting, CI/CD jobs, or centralized log collection). If enabled, sensitive values may be written to logs and then retained, shared, or exported beyond the original execution environment. An authenticated user with access to provider debug logs (through log aggregation systems, CI/CD pipelines, or debug output) would thus be able to extract these sensitive credentials. Versions 3.9.0 and later sanitize debug logs by logging only non-sensitive metadata such as labels, regions, and resource IDs while redacting credentials, tokens, keys, scripts, and other sensitive content. Some other mitigations and workarounds are available. Disable Terraform/provider debug logging or set it to `WARN` level or above, restrict access to existing and historical logs, purge/retention-trim logs that may contain sensitive values, and/or rotate potentially exposed secrets/credentials.
- Published
- Feb 25, 2026
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.5% · 44th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-532
Report tools
Action score
30
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 30 / 40 · 7.7 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.5%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 7.7
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 5.0
- 2.7 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| terraform | linode provider | cpe:2.3:a:terraform:linode_provider |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- terraform linode providerbefore 3.9.0
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
linode terraform-provider-linode
- < 3.9.0affected
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/linode/terraform-provider-linode | from 0 | — |
| Go | github.com/linode/terraform-provider-linode | up to and including 1.30.0 | — |
| Go | github.com/linode/terraform-provider-linode/v2 | from 0 | — |
| Go | github.com/linode/terraform-provider-linode/v2 | up to and including 2.41.2 | — |
| Go | github.com/linode/terraform-provider-linode/v3 | before 3.9.0 | 3.9.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Go:github.com/linode/terraform-provider-linode/v3 | 3.9.0 | 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.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
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
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-532 · Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log FileCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
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
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (4 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.