CVE-2026-94571
Description
A flaw was found in OpenStack Octavia. An authenticated user who can create or update L7 policies on their own load balancer can inject arbitrary HAProxy configuration directives through the redirect_url or redirect_prefix fields. The URL validator does not reject control characters such as tabs and newlines, and the raw input is written directly into the HAProxy configuration file on the Amphora VM. This can be used to change redirect behavior and, by injecting HAProxy program directives, to run commands on the Amphora.
Statement
This vulnerability is rated as Important because an authenticated project member can inject HAProxy configuration and run commands as root on the provider-managed Amphora for their load balancer. The Amphora has a network interface on the isolated load-balancer management network (lb-mgmt-net). It is not rated Critical because exploitation requires a valid OpenStack account with load-balancer:write, and Amphorae are single-tenant by design: other tenants' TLS private keys are not stored on the compromised VM. Upstream (OSSA-2026-039) treats this as a class A issue for the management-network foothold, while noting that stolen Amphora identity material is mainly useful on lb-mgmt-net. Red Hat OpenStack Platform deployments that use the Amphora provider for Octavia are affected. Deployments that use the OVN provider are not affected because they do not generate HAProxy configuration files.
Mitigation
There is no complete mitigation for Amphora-based deployments other than restricting who can create or update L7 policies. Operators can tighten Octavia oslo.policy so that load-balancer:write, or L7 policy create and update, is limited to trusted users. If L7 redirects are not required, deny L7 policy create and update. Deployments using the OVN provider instead of Amphora are not affected.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 7.4 | N/A | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Network | N/A | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | Low | N/A | N/A |
| Privileges Required | Low | N/A | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | N/A | N/A |
| Scope | Changed | N/A | N/A |
| Confidentiality | Low | N/A | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | Low | N/A | N/A |
| Availability Impact | Low | N/A | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
Red Hat CVSS v3 Score Explanation
RH CVSS 3.1 7.4 (High). Follows OSSA-2026-039 class A and Octavia comments: authenticated load-balancer:write tenant, Scope Changed because the Octavia API and the Amphora HAProxy process are separate authorities, C/I/A Low because Amphorae are single-tenant and extracted identity material is mainly useful on lb-mgmt-net. Pending confirmation from Octavia maintainers.
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Access Control
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
In some cases, injectable code controls authentication; this may lead to a remote vulnerability.
Access Control
Technical Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Injected code can access resources that the attacker is directly prevented from accessing.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
When a product allows a user's input to contain code syntax, it might be possible for an attacker to craft the code in such a way that it will alter the intended control flow of the product. As a result, code injection can often result in the execution of arbitrary code. Code injection attacks can also lead to loss of data integrity in nearly all cases, since the control-plane data injected is always incidental to data recall or writing.
Non-Repudiation
Technical Impact: Hide Activities
Often the actions performed by injected control code are unlogged.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
