Skip to content

Traefik Vulnerable to BasicAuth/DigestAuth Identity Spoofing via Non-Canonical headerField

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 27, 2026 in traefik/traefik • Updated Mar 27, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/traefik/traefik/v2 (Go)

Affected versions

< 2.11.42

Patched versions

2.11.42
gomod github.com/traefik/traefik/v3 (Go)
>= 3.0.0-beta1, < 3.6.11
>= 3.7.0-ea.1, < 3.7.0-ea.3
3.6.12
3.7.0-ea.3

Description

Summary

There is a potential vulnerability in Traefik's Basic and Digest authentication middlewares when headerField is configured with a non-canonical HTTP header name.

An authenticated attacker with valid credentials can inject the canonical version of the configured header to impersonate any identity to the backend. Because Traefik writes the authenticated username using a non-canonical map key, it creates a separate header entry rather than overwriting the attacker's canonical one — causing most backend frameworks to read the attacker-controlled value instead.

Patches

For more information

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory, please open an issue.

Original Description

Summary

When headerField is configured with a non-canonical HTTP header name (e.g., x-auth-user instead of X-Auth-User), an authenticated attacker can inject a canonical version of that header to impersonate any identity to the backend. The backend receives two header entries — the attacker-injected canonical one is read first, overriding Traefik's non-canonical write.

Tested on Traefik v3.6.10.

Details

At pkg/middlewares/auth/basic_auth.go:92, the authenticated username is written using direct map assignment:

req.Header[b.headerField] = []string{user}

Go's http.Header map is keyed by canonical names (e.g., X-Auth-User). Direct assignment with a non-canonical key (x-auth-user) creates a separate map entry from any canonical-key entry already present. The attacker's X-Auth-User: superadmin occupies the canonical slot and is never overwritten by Traefik's non-canonical write.

The same bug exists in pkg/middlewares/auth/digest_auth.go:100. Notably, forward.go:254 correctly uses http.CanonicalHeaderKey(), showing the fix pattern already exists in the codebase.

PoC

Traefik config (YAML, Docker labels, or REST API):

middlewares:
  auth:
    basicAuth:
      users: ["admin:$2y$05$..."]
      headerField: "x-auth-user"

Normal request (baseline):

curl -u admin:admin http://traefik/secure/test
# Backend receives: x-auth-user: admin
# Identity = admin ✓

Attack request:

curl -u admin:admin -H "X-Auth-User: superadmin" http://traefik/secure/test
# Backend receives BOTH headers:
#   X-Auth-User: superadmin   ← attacker-injected (canonical key, read first by most frameworks)
#   x-auth-user: admin        ← Traefik-set (non-canonical, ignored by most frameworks)
# Identity seen by backend = superadmin ✗

Control test — when headerField uses canonical casing (X-Auth-User), the attack fails. Traefik's write correctly overwrites the attacker's header.

This is realistic because YAML conventions favor lowercase keys, Traefik docs don't warn about canonicalization, and the pattern of backends trusting the headerField header is recommended in Traefik's own documentation.

Fix suggestion:

// basic_auth.go:92 and digest_auth.go:100 — change:
req.Header[b.headerField] = []string{user}
// to:
req.Header.Set(b.headerField, user)

Also strip any incoming headerField header before the auth check with req.Header.Del(b.headerField).

Impact

An authenticated attacker with valid credentials (even low-privilege) can impersonate any other user identity to backend services. If backends use the headerField header for authorization decisions (which is the intended use case per Traefik docs), this enables privilege escalation — e.g., a regular user impersonating an admin.

The attack requires the operator to configure headerField with a non-canonical header name, which is the natural thing to do in YAML and is not warned against in documentation.

### References - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/security/advisories/GHSA-qr99-7898-vr7c - https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33433 - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v2.11.42 - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.6.11 - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.7.0-ea.3
@nmengin nmengin published to traefik/traefik Mar 27, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 27, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 27, 2026
Reviewed Mar 27, 2026
Last updated Mar 27, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity High
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required High
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(1st percentile)

Weaknesses

Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-33433

GHSA ID

GHSA-qr99-7898-vr7c

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.