Manila: Incorrect Authorization
CVE-2026-71195 is a critical-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in Manila from OpenStack, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.9 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 20.0.3, 21.0.3, 22.0.2 as the first without the flaw, so updating Manila to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.48% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Update Manila to 20.0.3 or 21.0.3 or 22.0.2 or 23.0.1, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenStack | Manila | 1.0.0 up to, but not including, 20.0.3; 21.0.0 up to, but not including, 21.0.3; 22.0.0 up to, but not including, 22.0.2; 23.0.0 up to, but not including, 23.0.1 | 20.0.3, 21.0.3, 22.0.2, 23.0.1 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- ChangedThe attack can reach beyond the vulnerable component into other systems.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (mitre.org).
Official description
In OpenStack Manila before 23.0.1, multiple Manila API operations on public shares do not verify that the caller owns the share. The API controllers authorize operations against the caller's own project context, then load a foreign public share without re-authorizing against the share's actual owner. This affects the following operations: allow_access: grant data-plane read/write access to another tenant's share; deny_access: revoke the owner's existing access rules; update_access: escalate access level (e.g., ro to rw); create_share_backup: exfiltrate share data via a backup created under the attacker's project; soft_delete: move a foreign share to the recycle bin; restore: interfere with the owner's deletion workflow; export location metadata: create, update, and delete metadata on foreign export locations; access rule listing: disclose IPs, usernames, and CephFS keys. Any authenticated project member can exploit these operations on any public share. The share UUID is visible since the share is public.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other references
Recent Incorrect Authorization vulnerabilities
- 10.0 Critical severity
- 7.7 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.