CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-94572NVD status: Awaiting Analysis

Octavia: Improper Control of Generation of Code

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-94572 is a critical-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in Octavia from OpenStack, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 9.4 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 16.1.0, 17.0.1, 18.0.1 as the first without the flaw, so updating Octavia to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.53% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Patch this week

Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.

What to do

  1. Update Octavia to 16.1.0 or 17.0.1 or 18.0.1, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
OpenStackOctavia6.0.0 up to, but not including, 16.1.0; 17.0.0 up to, but not including, 17.0.1; 18.0.0 up to, but not including, 18.0.116.1.0, 17.0.1, 18.0.1

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.
Attack requirements
NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
Privileges required
LowA basic user account is enough.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
Integrity (vulnerable system)
HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
Availability (vulnerable system)
HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
Confidentiality (other systems)
HighSerious loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Integrity (other systems)
HighSerious loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Availability (other systems)
HighSerious loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA (mitre.org).

Official description

In OpenStack Octavia before 18.0.1, the Amphora provider driver did not validate the listener and pool tls_ciphers field for control characters. The value is written verbatim into the HAProxy configuration generated on the amphora, and thus an authenticated project member who owns a TLS-enabled load balancer can embed a newline and inject arbitrary HAProxy configuration directives. Only deployments using the Amphora provider are affected.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Control of Generation of Code

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Run your code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

More Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities (CWE-94)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in Octavia

All Octavia vulnerabilities

Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.