Summary
Capsule: hostnameRegexHandler.OnUpdate validates stale (old) Tenant regex, allowing invalid AllowedHostnames regex to bypass webhook validation
A parameter order bug in internal/webhook/tenant/validation/hostname_regex.go causes the hostnameRegexHandler.OnUpdate webhook to validate the old Tenant object's AllowedHostnames.Regex instead of the new one being submitted. This allows an invalid (malformed) regex to bypass admission validation and be persisted to etcd, causing a Denial of Service for all Ingress operations within the affected tenant.
Details
The TypedHandler[T] interface defines OnUpdate as:
// handlers.go
OnUpdate(c client.Client, reader client.Reader, obj T, old T, decoder admission.Decoder, recorder events.EventRecorder) Func
// ^^^ NEW ^^^ OLD
The dispatcher in handler.go:93 calls:
hndl.OnUpdate(c, reader, tnt, old, decoder, recorder)
// ^^^ NEW ^^^ OLD
However, hostnameRegexHandler.OnUpdate in hostname_regex.go declares its parameters in reversed order:
// hostname_regex.go (BUGGY)
func (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(
_ client.Client,
_ client.Reader,
old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant, // ← receives NEW tenant (mislabeled as old)
tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant, // ← receives OLD tenant (mislabeled as tnt)
...
) handlers.Func {
return func(...) *admission.Response {
if err := h.validate(tnt, req); err != nil { // ← validates OLD, not NEW
return err
}
return nil
}
}
All 11 other handlers in the same package declare (tnt, old) correctly. hostname_regex.go is the only one with the swap.
As a result, when a Cluster Admin updates Tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex to a malformed value, the webhook compiles the previous valid regex and returns Allow. The malformed regex is then written to etcd.
Subsequently, every Ingress CREATE or UPDATE in that tenant triggers validate_hostnames.go:160:
matched, _ = regexp.MatchString(allowedRegex, currentHostname)
regexp.MatchString with an invalid pattern returns (false, error). The error is silently ignored, matched is false, and every hostname is rejected, blocking all Ingress operations in the tenant until the Tenant object is manually corrected by an admin.
PoC
//go:build ignore
// Standalone reproducer for hostname_regex.go argument swap bug in Capsule
// No external deps - shows the bug logic using only stdlib
package main
import (
"fmt"
"regexp"
)
// Simulating the Tenant spec structure
type AllowedHostnames struct {
Regex string
}
type IngressOptions struct {
AllowedHostnames *AllowedHostnames
}
type TenantSpec struct {
IngressOptions IngressOptions
}
type Tenant struct {
Name string
Spec TenantSpec
}
// =========================================================
// BUGGY implementation (hostname_regex.go as-is)
// OnUpdate(_, _, old *Tenant, tnt *Tenant) → validates OLD
// =========================================================
func hostnameValidate(tnt *Tenant) error {
if tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames == nil {
return nil
}
if len(tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex) == 0 {
return nil
}
_, err := regexp.Compile(tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("Deny: unable to compile allowedHostnames allowedRegex")
}
return nil
}
// Dispatcher calls: OnUpdate(c, reader, newTenant, oldTenant, ...)
// Interface says: OnUpdate(c, reader, obj[NEW], old[OLD], ...)
//
// BUGGY handler receives: (old, tnt) meaning:
// 3rd param (labeled "old") = actually NEW
// 4th param (labeled "tnt") = actually OLD
// Then calls h.validate(tnt) = validates the OLD tenant
func buggyOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant *Tenant) error {
// BUG: parameters are SWAPPED vs the interface contract
old := newTenant // dispatcher's "new" arrives as "old" in this function
tnt := oldTenant // dispatcher's "old" arrives as "tnt" in this function
_ = old // unused in the real code too
return hostnameValidate(tnt) // validates OLD, not NEW
}
// CORRECT implementation (what it should be)
func correctOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant *Tenant) error {
_ = oldTenant
return hostnameValidate(newTenant) // validates NEW
}
// Simulate ingress hostname validation AFTER bad regex is stored
func validateIngressHostname(tenant *Tenant, hostname string) bool {
if tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames == nil {
return true
}
allowedRegex := tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex
if len(allowedRegex) == 0 {
return true
}
// This is validate_hostnames.go:160 - error is IGNORED
matched, _ := regexp.MatchString(allowedRegex, hostname)
return matched
}
func main() {
fmt.Println("=== Capsule Bug Reproducer: hostname_regex.go argument swap ===")
fmt.Println()
oldTenant := &Tenant{
Name: "demo-tenant",
Spec: TenantSpec{
IngressOptions: IngressOptions{
AllowedHostnames: &AllowedHostnames{
Regex: `^[\w.-]+\.example\.com$`, // valid regex
},
},
},
}
// Attacker (cluster admin) sets an INVALID regex in the new spec
newTenant := &Tenant{
Name: "demo-tenant",
Spec: TenantSpec{
IngressOptions: IngressOptions{
AllowedHostnames: &AllowedHostnames{
Regex: `[invalid-regex(`, // INVALID regex
},
},
},
}
fmt.Printf("Old tenant regex: %q (valid)\n", oldTenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)
fmt.Printf("New tenant regex: %q (INVALID)\n", newTenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)
fmt.Println()
// Step 1: Webhook runs OnUpdate
fmt.Println("--- Step 1: Webhook OnUpdate ---")
err := buggyOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant)
if err != nil {
fmt.Printf("[BUGGY] Webhook DENIES update: %v\n", err)
} else {
fmt.Println("[BUGGY] Webhook ALLOWS update (validates OLD regex) ← WRONG")
}
err = correctOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant)
if err != nil {
fmt.Printf("[CORRECT] Webhook DENIES update: %v ← EXPECTED\n", err)
} else {
fmt.Println("[CORRECT] Webhook ALLOWS update")
}
// Step 2: Invalid regex now stored in etcd - simulate ingress validation
fmt.Println()
fmt.Println("--- Step 2: Ingress creation after bad regex stored ---")
storedTenant := newTenant // bad regex is now in etcd
hostnames := []string{
"app.example.com",
"api.example.com",
"evil.attacker.com",
}
for _, h := range hostnames {
allowed := validateIngressHostname(storedTenant, h)
fmt.Printf(" Ingress hostname %q → allowed=%v", h, allowed)
if !allowed {
fmt.Print(" ← BLOCKED (DoS: invalid regex causes all hostnames to fail)")
}
fmt.Println()
}
fmt.Println()
fmt.Println("=== Result ===")
fmt.Println("Invalid regex bypasses webhook validation and gets stored.")
fmt.Println("All subsequent Ingress create/update in this tenant are BLOCKED.")
fmt.Println("CWE-697: Incorrect Comparison, wrong Tenant object is validated.")
}
// Simulates the buggy webhook behaviour
oldTenant := &Tenant{AllowedRegex: `^[\w-]+\.example\.com$`} // valid
newTenant := &Tenant{AllowedRegex: `[invalid-regex(`} // malformed
// Buggy OnUpdate: validates oldTenant (valid) → ALLOW
// Correct OnUpdate: validates newTenant (invalid) → DENY
// After malformed regex is stored, all ingress hostnames are rejected:
matched, _ := regexp.MatchString(`[invalid-regex(`, "app.example.com")
// matched = false, error ignored → Ingress blocked
Impact
A Cluster Admin (or a compromised admin account) can, intentionally or via a typo, set a malformed AllowedHostnames.Regex on any Tenant. The webhook silently accepts the update. All users in the affected tenant are subsequently unable to create or update any Ingress resource until an admin manually corrects the Tenant spec. This constitutes a targeted Denial of Service against the tenant's ingress layer.
CVE-2026-61795 has a CVSS score of 6.8 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, high privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (0.13.7); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Swap the parameter names in hostname_regex.go to match the interface contract:
// BEFORE (buggy)
func (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(
_ client.Client,
_ client.Reader,
old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,
tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,
...
// AFTER (fixed)
func (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(
_ client.Client,
_ client.Reader,
tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,
old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,
...
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-61795? CVE-2026-61795 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in github.com/projectcapsule/capsule (go), affecting versions >= 0.13.0, < 0.13.7. It is fixed in 0.13.7.
- How severe is CVE-2026-61795? CVE-2026-61795 has a CVSS score of 6.8 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which versions of github.com/projectcapsule/capsule are affected by CVE-2026-61795? github.com/projectcapsule/capsule (go) versions >= 0.13.0, < 0.13.7 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-61795? Yes. CVE-2026-61795 is fixed in 0.13.7. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-61795 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-61795 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-61795 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-61795? Upgrade
github.com/projectcapsule/capsuleto 0.13.7 or later.