Skip to content

OpenChoreo: Authenticated OS command injection via OpenChoreo Workflow Plane templates enables code execution in privileged pods

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 27, 2026 in openchoreo/openchoreo • Updated Sep 2, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/openchoreo/openchoreo (Go)

Affected versions

< 1.0.4
>= 1.1.0, < 1.1.4
>= 1.2.0-rc.1, < 1.2.0-rc.2

Patched versions

1.0.4
1.1.4
1.2.0-rc.2

Description

Summary

OpenChoreo Workflow Plane templates were vulnerable to OS command injection because some developer-controlled workflow parameters were interpolated directly into shell program text executed through sh -c.

An authenticated user with permission to configure and trigger an affected workflow could supply crafted parameter values containing shell metacharacters. Because Argo substituted these values directly into the shell script before execution, the values could alter the script and execute arbitrary commands inside the workflow pod.

In affected configurations, some build and publish templates used privileged Podman containers without Kubernetes pod user-namespace isolation. Consequently, injected commands could run as UID 0 inside a privileged container, with UID 0 mapped into the host user namespace. This substantially increased the potential impact of the command-injection vulnerability.

The remediation ensures that workflow parameters are treated as data rather than executable shell syntax. Affected values are now passed through container.env and consumed as quoted shell variables. JSON-derived build environment variables and build arguments are passed as separate argument-vector entries instead of being reconstructed as whitespace-delimited shell strings.

Impact

An authenticated user with permission to trigger an affected workflow could execute arbitrary commands inside the corresponding workflow pod.

Depending on the affected template and its configuration, an attacker could potentially:

  • Read source code checked out by the workflow.
  • Read Git credentials, registry credentials, or other secrets mounted into the pod.
  • Read the pod's Kubernetes service account token.
  • Access mounted volumes and other build-time data.
  • etc

Some affected build and publish templates ran Podman using:

securityContext:
  privileged: true

and did not previously enable pod user namespaces.

Without hostUsers: false, UID 0 inside the container is UID 0 in the host user namespace. In combination with privileged mode, this grants the container broad Linux capabilities and removes several normal container isolation restrictions.

This does not mean that every successful command injection automatically results in a container escape or complete node compromise. However, it materially increases the risk. Depending on the container runtime, available devices, mounted paths, kernel configuration, and node environment, an attacker may be able to access host resources or escalate the compromise to the underlying node.

For example, access to a host block device such as /dev/vda1 is only possible when that device is exposed or otherwise visible inside the container. The presence and naming of such devices are environment-specific and should not be assumed across all deployments.

Patches

The fixes have been applied to the 1.0.4, 1.1.4, and 1.2.0-rc.2 releases. The fix prevents OS command injection by removing direct interpolation of developer-controlled Argo parameters into shell scripts executed through sh -c. Affected values are now passed through container environment variables and consumed as quoted shell variables, while JSON-derived build arguments and environment variables are passed as separate argument entries instead of being reconstructed as shell command strings. The patched workflow templates also enable pod user namespaces for containers that still require privileged Podman by setting hostUsers: false. This maps UID 0 inside the pod to a non-root UID on the host when user namespaces are supported by the cluster. Privileged execution has also been removed from workflow templates where it is no longer required.

Users of the sample workflow templates should apply the corrected templates from the corresponding release branch: https://github.com/openchoreo/openchoreo/tree/release-v1.x/samples/getting-started/workflow-templates. Replace release-v1.x with the relevant release branch, such as release-v1.0, release-v1.1, or release-v1.2, and apply the applicable workflow templates to the cluster.

Users with custom workflow templates should also review and update those templates, as upgrading OpenChoreo does not automatically correct independently maintained custom templates containing unsafe shell interpolation.

Workarounds

If you cannot upgrade immediately:

  • Restrict permission to create, modify, or trigger workflows to trusted users only.
  • Do not allow untrusted users to control parameters used by checkout, build, publish, or workload-generation templates.

References

@mevan-karu mevan-karu published to openchoreo/openchoreo Jul 27, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Aug 13, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 2, 2026
Reviewed Sep 2, 2026
Last updated Sep 2, 2026

Severity

High

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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.
(47th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-73667

GHSA ID

GHSA-2mw5-23gm-pccq

Source code

Credits

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