JujuApplication · Canonical
CVE-2026-32692
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 · uneditedAn authorization bypass vulnerability in the Vault secrets back-end implementation of Juju versions 3.1.6 through 3.6.18 allows an authenticated unit agent to perform unauthorized updates to secret revisions. With sufficient information, an attacker can poison any existing secret revision within the scope of that Vault secret back-end.
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 analysis · high confidenceThis is an authorization bypass vulnerability in Juju's Vault secrets back-end where authenticated unit agents can perform unauthorized updates to secret revisions. The flaw allows attackers to poison existing secret revisions within the scope of the Vault secret back-end by bypassing proper authorization checks during secret revision operations.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
JujuApplication
>= 3.1.6, < 3.6.19CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Determine Juju versionRun `juju version` on the controller machine, or check `/var/lib/juju/agents/*/agent.conf` for the agent-version fieldAffected if Version is >= 3.1.6 and < 3.6.19 (vulnerable range)
-
Identify secret backend configurationRun `juju model-config secrets` or inspect model configuration YAML for the secret-backend settingAffected if secret-backend is set to 'vault' or 'vault-kv' (Vault secrets provider enabled)
-
Confirm unit agent access existsVerify unit agents are deployed and authenticated by checking `juju status` output for running unitsAffected if Unit agents are actively connected to the controller (authenticated attackers can exploit the flaw)
You are affected if your Juju version falls within 3.1.6 through 3.6.18 and the Vault secrets backend is configured in your model.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
dbcve · scoped3.6.19
Upgrade Juju to a version beyond 3.6.18 that contains the patched authorization logic for the Vault secrets back-end, or apply vendor-provided patches if available.
Juju 3.6.19 or later
- 1. Identify all Juju controller and model deployments running affected versions (3.1.6 through 3.6.18)
- 2. Plan maintenance window for upgrade to avoid disruption to running workloads
- 3. Upgrade Juju to version 3.6.19 or later using the standard upgrade procedure for your deployment method
- 4. Verify the upgrade completed successfully by checking the Juju version
- 5. Confirm the Vault secrets back-end is functioning correctly with the updated Juju version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Juju
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-32692 — 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-2026-32692 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