CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-100837

Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input

Published: Sep 27, 2026 | Modified: Sep 27, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

Contrast (Edgeless Systems) through 1.20.0 performs unanchored suffix matching when selecting per-registry configuration in the imagepuller. Config.registryFor strips a single trailing dot and then uses strings.HasSuffix(hostname, fqdn) without requiring a DNS label boundary, so a registry entry such as [registries.ghcr.io.] is also applied to any host whose name merely ends in that byte sequence, including attacker-registered domains such as evilghcr.io. When an image or layer is pulled from such a sibling domain, the imagepuller sends the configured Authorization header (basic auth, registry token, or identity token), trusts the configured custom CA bundle, follows the configured mirror, and honours insecure-skip-verify (disabling TLS verification) for that host. Image integrity is not affected, as image bytes remain pinned by digest in the policy and are validated after the pull. Configurations that use a leading dot (e.g., [registries..example.registry]) are unaffected.

Weakness

The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.

Extended Description

Attackers can sometimes bypass input validation schemes by finding inputs that appear to be safe, but will be dangerous when processed at a lower layer or by a downstream component. For example, a simple XSS protection mechanism might try to validate that an input has no “” tags using case-sensitive matching, but since HTML is case-insensitive when processed by web browsers, an attacker could inject “” and trigger XSS.

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References