CVE-2026-53716 — Envoy Gateway: Wasm HTTP fetch decompresses gzip without output-size limit
Envoy Gateway is an open source project for managing Envoy Proxy as a standalone or Kubernetes-based application gateway. Prior to 1.7.4 and 1.8.1, getFileFromGZ in internal/wasm/httpfetcher.go calls io.ReadAll on a gzip.Reader without limiting decompressed output when a tenant-controlled EnvoyExtensionPolicy.spec.wasm[].code.http.url points to a reachable compressed Wasm payload. The 256 MiB compressed-input cap does not constrain the expanded size, no operator Wasm URL allowlist exists, and the optional sha256 check occurs only after decompression, so a comparatively small gzip stream can force a multi-gigabyte allocation in the shared controller. The resulting out-of-memory termination restarts the controller, re-reconciles the persistent custom resource, and can create a persistent cross-tenant control-plane outage. This issue is fixed in versions 1.7.4 and 1.8.1.
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
- EPSS 0.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
- 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 (Envoyproxy Gateway).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Envoyproxy | Gateway | version < 1.7.4version >= 1.8.0-rc.0, < 1.8.1 | 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 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 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:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (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).
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · envoyproxy/gateway
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 6.5
- Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
- 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
9 on the record
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/commit/96e2b750868a459ace4b8b68e6a6e4fb0152b9b7
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/commit/b4737180c7e597490c6363075c565fa8cf24eead
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/releases/tag/v1.7.4
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/security/advisories/GHSA-cxpq-8v7q-cg56
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/commit/5a78db82b7cf4fc5bebbeda2c50952892038a464
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/releases/tag/v1.8.1
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/pull/9171
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/pull/9172
- github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/pull/9173
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Medium CVE-2026-53718 Envoy Gateway custom backendRef cross-namespace ReferenceGrant bypass Sep 14, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-53719 Envoy Gateway: Nil-dereference when SecurityPolicy targets TCPRoute without spec.authorization Sep 14, 2026
- Critical CVE-2026-53713 Envoy Gateway: Authentication Bypass via Improper Input Validation in EnvoyExtensionPolicy Lua Allows Secret Disclosure Sep 14, 2026
- High CVE-2026-53714 Envoy Gateway: xDS Control Plane Information Disclosure when Envoy Gateway operates in GatewayNamespaceMode Sep 14, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-53715 Envoy Gateway: Wasm cache ServeHTTP reads mappingPath2Cache without lock Sep 14, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-53717 Envoy Gateway: OCI layer extraction allocates make([]byte, h.Size) from untrusted tar header Sep 14, 2026
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 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-2026-53716 is "Envoy Gateway: Wasm HTTP fetch decompresses gzip without output-size limit", rated Medium. It affects Gateway (Envoyproxy); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.72% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. 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.