agentConn.apiClient() used the default redirect behavior of http.Client while its custom transport dialed the host from the request URL as long as the port was the workspace agent HTTP API port (4). Agent tailnet IPs are deterministic from agent UUIDs, so a malicious workspace agent could return a redirect to another agent's tailnet IP and cause the control-plane client to send the follow-up workspace agent API request to the victim agent instead of the intended agent.
Redirects that preserve the method and body, such as HTTP 307 and 308, allow replay of write and process-start requests. HTTP 301, 302 and 303 redirects only convert POST requests to GET requests, so they are sufficient to demonstrate redirected reads but not write or command-execution primitives.
An authenticated user with a running workspace and control of a modified workspace agent can redirect workspace agent API requests made to their agent toward another online workspace agent reachable on the tailnet. If the attacker knows the victim agent UUID, they can derive the victim's tailnet IP and target the victim's file APIs to read or write files as the victim workspace user.
In affected versions that expose the workspace agent process API, the same primitive can be chained to command execution as the victim workspace user by writing a payload through the redirected file API and then redirecting a process-start request to execute it. This crosses workspace and tenant boundaries.
The fix disables automatic redirect following for workspace agent API clients and pins all workspace agent API dials to the intended agent's deterministic tailnet address. Requests whose URL host does not match the intended agent are rejected instead of being dialed.
The fix was backported to all supported release lines:
| Release line | Patched version | |---|---| | 2.34 | v2.34.4 | | 2.33 | v2.33.10 | | 2.32 | v2.32.9 | | 2.29 (ESR) | v2.29.19 |
None. Upgrading is required.
| Software | Affected versions |
|---|---|
github.com/coder/coder/v2
|
>= 2.34.0, < 2.34.4 |
github.com/coder/coder/v2
|
>= 2.33.0, < 2.33.10 |
github.com/coder/coder/v2
|
>= 2.30.0, < 2.32.9 |
github.com/coder/coder/v2
|
>= 2.27.0, < 2.29.19 |
A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.
What is attack surface management? →A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.