CVE-2026-50149 — Contour has Improper JWT Verification for Non-SNI Requests on Virtual Hosts with Fallback Certificate Enabled
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.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- Technical severity (medium)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Projectcontour Contour).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Projectcontour | Contour | version >= 1.23.0, < 1.33.5 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 2.2 | 4.2 | security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
- Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · projectcontour/contour
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 6.5
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
1 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-41246 Contour: Lua code injection via Cookie Path Rewrite Policy Apr 23, 2026
- High CVE-2023-44487 HTTP/2 Rapid Reset Attack Vulnerability KEV Oct 10, 2023
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No FIRST EPSS score.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-50149 is "Contour has Improper JWT Verification for Non-SNI Requests on Virtual Hosts with Fallback Certificate Enabled", rated Medium. It affects Contour (Projectcontour); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.