Vulnerability Database

362,176

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-61549 — go.woodpecker-ci.org/woodpecker/v3

Improper Privilege Management

Impact

A privilege escalation vulnerability affects Woodpecker instances using the Kubernetes backend.

The pipeline option backend_options.kubernetes.serviceAccountName was passed directly to the pod spec without any admin gating.

Who is impacted: any operator running the Kubernetes backend. Any user with Push permission on a connected repository can run pipeline pods under an arbitrary ServiceAccount in the pipeline namespace, gaining that account's RBAC permissions. If a privileged ServiceAccount is reachable in that namespace, this can lead to secret exfiltration (database credentials, API keys, TLS certs) and full cluster takeover.

Patches

https://github.com/woodpecker-ci/woodpecker/pull/6792

Workarounds

Operators who cannot upgrade immediately can mitigate by any of:

  • Restrict Push access on repositories connected to the Kubernetes-backed instance to trusted users only.
  • Harden the pipeline namespace: ensure no privileged ServiceAccount exists or is bound in the namespace where pipeline pods run; keep the default ServiceAccount minimally privileged.
  • Disable ServiceAccount token automounting for ServiceAccounts that should not be used by pipelines.
  • Enforce an admission policy (e.g. OPA/Gatekeeper, Kyverno, or a ValidatingAdmissionPolicy) that rejects pipeline pods setting an unexpected serviceAccountName.
  • Use a dedicated, isolated namespace per org/instance with no sensitive RBAC bindings.

Resources

  • Vulnerable option introduced in commit 609ba481b5e912f59aaae8ca7bc22b44523c5e37
  • Affected versions: v1.0.0 through v3.15.0
  • Source: pipeline/backend/kubernetes/backend_options.go (field ServiceAccountName), pipeline/backend/kubernetes/pod.go (assigned to pod spec with no gating)

No technical information available.

Frequently Asked Questions

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.