CVE-2026-50107
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 · uneditedWhen NGINX Plus or NGINX Open Source is configured as the data plane for NGINX Gateway Fabric, an injection vulnerability exists in the NGINX configuration generator component of NGINX Gateway Fabric. User-supplied string values from the NginxProxy Custom Resource Definition (CRD) access log format setting are rendered directly into NGINX configuration templates without sanitization or escaping. An authenticated attacker with permission to create or modify these CRDs may craft values that inject arbitrary NGINX configuration directives. This is a control plane issue; there is no data plane exposure from the vulnerability trigger itself. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
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 a configuration injection vulnerability in NGINX Gateway Fabric's configuration generator. When NginxProxy CRD access log format settings are specified, user-supplied values are directly injected into NGINX configuration templates without sanitization or escaping, allowing authenticated attackers with CRD modify permissions to inject arbitrary NGINX directives.
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>= 2.3.0, < 2.6.4CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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 NGINX Gateway Fabric versionRun 'kubectl get pods -n <namespace> -o jsonpath="{.items[*].spec.containers[?(@.name==\"nginx-gateway\")].image}"' to find the nginx-gateway container image, then extract the version from the image tagAffected if The version is greater than or equal to 2.3.0 and less than 2.6.4
-
Check for NginxProxy CRDs in the clusterRun 'kubectl get crd | grep -i nginxproxy' to see if NginxProxy custom resource definition existsAffected if NginxProxy CRD is present in the cluster
-
List existing NginxProxy resourcesRun 'kubectl get nginxproxies -A' to retrieve all NginxProxy custom resources in all namespacesAffected if Any NginxProxy resources exist in the cluster
-
Inspect access log format configurationRun 'kubectl get nginxproxies -A -o jsonpath="{.items[*].spec.accessLogFormat}"' or inspect individual NginxProxy resources with 'kubectl get nginxproxy <name> -n <namespace> -o yaml' to check for accessLogFormat or accessLogPath settingsAffected if accessLogFormat field is explicitly configured with user-supplied values in any NginxProxy resource
-
Verify CRD modify permissionsReview RBAC policies: run 'kubectl auth can-i create nginxproxies' and 'kubectl auth can-i update nginxproxies' to check if untrusted users have modification rights to NginxProxy resourcesAffected if Untrusted or unauthenticated users have create/modify permissions on NginxProxy CRDs
You are affected if NGINX Gateway Fabric version is between 2.3.0 and 2.6.4 (exclusive) AND any NginxProxy resource has access log format settings explicitly configured with user-controlled values.
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 · scoped2.6.4
Restrict permissions to create/modify NginxProxy CRDs to trusted users only until a patch implementing proper input sanitization is applied to NGINX Gateway Fabric.
Nginx Gateway Fabric 2.6.4 or later
- Identify the current version of Nginx Gateway Fabric deployed in your cluster using kubectl get pods -n <namespace> or your deployment manifests
- Upgrade Nginx Gateway Fabric to version 2.6.4 or later. For Kubernetes deployments, update the image tag in your deployment configuration (e.g., container.image: nginx/nginx-gateway-fabric:2.6.4 or newer)
- Apply the updated deployment configuration using kubectl apply -f <deployment-file.yaml>
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking that new pods are running: kubectl get pods -n <namespace>
- Review NginxProxy CRD configurations to ensure no malicious access log format values were injected prior to the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-50107 — 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-2026-50107 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