CVE-2021-21378
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedEnvoy is a cloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxy. In Envoy version 1.17.0 an attacker can bypass authentication by presenting a JWT token with an issuer that is not in the provider list when Envoy's JWT Authentication filter is configured with the `allow_missing` requirement under `requires_any` due to a mistake in implementation. Envoy's JWT Authentication filter can be configured with the `allow_missing` requirement that will be satisfied if JWT is missing (JwtMissed error) and fail if JWT is presented or invalid. Due to a mistake in implementation, a JwtUnknownIssuer error was mistakenly converted to JwtMissed when `requires_any` was configured. So if `allow_missing` was configured under `requires_any`, an attacker can bypass authentication by presenting a JWT token with an issuer that is not in the provider list. Integrity may be impacted depending on configuration if the JWT token is used to protect against writes or modifications. This regression was introduced on 2020/11/12 in PR 13839 which fixed handling `allow_missing` under RequiresAny in a JwtRequirement (see issue 13458). The AnyVerifier aggregates the children verifiers' results into a final status where JwtMissing is the default error. However, a JwtUnknownIssuer was mistakenly treated the same as a JwtMissing error and the resulting final aggregation was the default JwtMissing. As a result, `allow_missing` would allow a JWT token with an unknown issuer status. This is fixed in version 1.17.1 by PR 15194. The fix works by preferring JwtUnknownIssuer over a JwtMissing error, fixing the accidental conversion and bypass with `allow_missing`. A user could detect whether a bypass occurred if they have Envoy logs enabled with debug verbosity. Users can enable component level debug logs for JWT. The JWT filter logs will indicate that there is a request with a JWT token and a failure that the JWT token is missing.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisThe mechanism that verifies who a user is can be side-stepped or fooled, letting an attacker act as someone they're not. Everything built on top of that identity then becomes untrustworthy. Fixing it means hardening the full authentication flow, including edge cases, tokens, and secondary paths.
General guidance for the improper authentication class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 1.17.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataScan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-21378 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-21378 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data