dbcve.org
Incorrect AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-863

CVE-2026-73499

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-08-12
No fix yet
No fix has been published. The vendor has not shipped a fixed release or patch. You remain exposed.
See remediation →
77/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable Zero-click 6 days old

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 · unedited
etcd is a distributed key-value store for the data of a distributed system. Prior to versions 3.5.33, 3.6.14, and 3.7.1, a user granted READ permission on a single exact key can use the Watch gRPC API with clientv3.WithFromKey() to receive watch events for every key lexicographically greater than or equal to the permitted key. In server/etcdserver/api/v3rpc/watch.go, the open-ended RangeEnd sentinel is rewritten before the RBAC permission check in server/auth/range_perm_cache.go function isRangeOpPermitted, causing the request to be treated as an exact-key watch. Range/Get and DeleteRange requests are not affected, and the issue affects only clusters with authentication enabled. This issue is fixed in versions 3.5.33, 3.6.14, and 3.7.1.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-863

An authorization check exists but is flawed, so it passes when it should fail. Attackers probe roles and object references to find the gap. Remediation means centralising and correctly implementing the access-control logic, then testing it against every role.

General guidance for the incorrect authorization class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

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
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 · scoped
Recommended fix High confidence

Upgrade to etcd 3.5.33, 3.6.14, or 3.7.1 depending on your current major version branch

  1. 1. Identify the current etcd version running in the cluster using `etcd --version` or checking the container image tag
  2. 2. Plan an upgrade to one of the fixed versions: 3.5.33, 3.6.14, or 3.7.1 (choose the appropriate version based on your current major.minor branch)
  3. 3. Create a backup of the etcd data directory before upgrading using `etcdctl snapshot save` or the appropriate backup mechanism for your deployment
  4. 4. Upgrade etcd to the chosen fixed version following your organization's standard upgrade procedure (rolling upgrade or maintenance window)
  5. 5. After upgrade, verify authentication is still functioning correctly and test that Watch permissions work as expected for single-key grants
Caveat Minor version upgrades typically have minimal breaking changes; review etcd release notes for any behavioral changes between your current version and the target fixed version

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

No vendor fix exists The vendor has not published a patch for this.

There is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.

Add your voice

Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.

Can’t wait

We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $4,900. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.

Scope it with us

See what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-73499 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-73499 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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