CVE-2026-33494
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 · uneditedORY Oathkeeper is an Identity & Access Proxy (IAP) and Access Control Decision API that authorizes HTTP requests based on sets of Access Rules. Versions prior to 26.2.0 are vulnerable to an authorization bypass via HTTP path traversal. An attacker can craft a URL containing path traversal sequences (e.g. `/public/../admin/secrets`) that resolves to a protected path after normalization, but is matched against a permissive rule because the raw, un-normalized path is used during rule evaluation. Version 26.2.0 contains a patch.
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 confidenceORY Oathkeeper versions prior to 26.2.0 suffer from an authorization bypass via HTTP path traversal. The vulnerability occurs because the raw, un-normalized request path is used during access rule evaluation instead of the normalized path. An attacker can craft URLs containing path traversal sequences (e.g., `/public/../admin/secrets`) that resolve to protected paths after server-side normalization but match against permissive rules designed for the un-normalized path.
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< 26.2.0CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/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.
-
Identify Oathkeeper versionRun `oathkeeper version` or check the container image tag / binary version installed in your environmentAffected if Version is below 26.2.0
-
Confirm proxy mode is in useReview Oathkeeper configuration (e.g., oathkeeper.yaml) and check if the 'proxy' server is enabled under the 'serve' sectionAffected if Proxy mode is enabled and version is below 26.2.0
-
List active access rulesQuery the Oathkeeper API at GET /api/rules or check rule files in the configured rules directoryAffected if Any access rules exist with broad path matchers (e.g., prefix matches like '/public', '/api', or wildcard patterns)
-
Identify rules with permissive path matchersReview access rules for path patterns that could be traversed (e.g., rules matching '/public', '/api/', or paths without strict anchoring)Affected if Rules contain path matchers that start with '/public' or similar broadly accessible paths that could be bypassed via path traversal (e.g., /public/../admin)
You are affected if running Oathkeeper version below 26.2.0 with proxy mode enabled and access rules that contain permissive path matchers vulnerable to traversal manipulation.
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 · scoped26.2.0
Upgrade to ORY Oathkeeper version 26.2.0 or later which contains the patch for this path normalization vulnerability. If immediate upgrade is not possible, implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block path traversal sequences in incoming requests.
26.2.0
- 1. Identify the current running version of ORY Oathkeeper using the binary version flag or container image tag
- 2. Backup all existing Oathkeeper configuration files, including rule files and the API Access Rules configuration
- 3. Upgrade the Oathkeeper installation to version 26.2.0 using the appropriate method (binary download, container image pull, or package manager)
- 4. After upgrading, verify that the path normalization is now applied correctly by testing with path traversal sequences (e.g., `/public/../admin/secrets`) to confirm the vulnerability is remediated
- 5. Review the Oathkeeper changelog or release notes for version 26.2.0 to ensure all rule evaluation behaviors are as expected
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-33494 — 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-2026-33494 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