CVE-2026-62147
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 · uneditedThe Tempo Operator's gateway component failed to consistently apply namespace-scoped redaction on some query API response paths when query RBAC was enabled, allowing an authenticated user to read span attributes belonging to other tenants' namespaces.
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 · moderate confidenceThe Tempo Operator's gateway component has a tenant isolation bypass vulnerability where namespace-scoped redaction is inconsistently applied to query API responses when query RBAC is enabled. This allows an authenticated user to read span attributes from other tenants' namespaces, violating multi-tenant data isolation boundaries.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 Tempo Operator installationCheck for the presence of Tempo Operator in the cluster by running `kubectl get pods -n <namespace> | grep tempo` or checking for the Tempo custom resource definitions with `kubectl get crd | grep tempo`Affected if Tempo Operator gateway component is present in the environment
-
Determine Tempo Operator versionRun `kubectl get tempo <tempo-instance-name> -n <namespace> -o jsonpath='{.spec.images}'` or check the operator deployment image tag with `kubectl get deployment -n <namespace> -l app.kubernetes.io/name=tempo-operator -o jsonpath='{.items[0].spec.template.spec.containers[0].image}'`Affected if Installed version falls within the affected version range for this CVE (compare against known affected versions if available)
-
Verify query RBAC is enabledCheck the Tempo CR configuration for query RBAC settings: `kubectl get tempo <tempo-instance-name> -n <namespace> -o jsonpath='{.spec.query}'` or inspect the gateway configuration for RBAC-related flags in the deploymentAffected if Query RBAC is explicitly enabled in the Tempo Operator configuration
-
Confirm multi-tenant deploymentReview tenant configuration by checking for multiple tenant custom resources or namespace-based tenant isolation: `kubectl get tenants -n <namespace>` or examine the `spec.tenants` section of the Tempo CRAffected if Multiple tenants are configured using namespace-based isolation in a multi-tenant deployment
-
Inspect gateway query API response handlingReview gateway logs for tenant isolation indicators or test query API responses between different tenants using authenticated requests to observe if cross-tenant attribute leakage occursAffected if Query responses from one tenant contain span attributes from another tenant's namespace
The environment is affected if Tempo Operator with a vulnerable gateway version is deployed with query RBAC enabled in a multi-tenant configuration where tenant isolation can be bypassed.
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.
From vendor dataEnable and properly configure query RBAC to ensure all query API response paths consistently apply namespace-scoped redaction; review and test tenant isolation in multi-tenant deployments.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-62147 — 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-2026-62147 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