Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
A low-privileged Kubernetes tenant could interfere with another tenant’s Instana monitoring permissions. By creating a same-named InstanaAgent resource in another namespace, the tenant may replace or delete shared cluster-wide RBAC bindings, disrupting monitoring or taking control of those permissions. No confidentiality impact is identified, but integrity and availability consequences are severe.
Executive priority
Treat as an immediate remediation priority for multi-tenant Kubernetes environments. The vulnerability can let one authenticated tenant disrupt another tenant’s cluster monitoring or alter shared permissions. Determine affected builds and tenant permissions promptly, then follow IBM’s advisory. Lower-tenancy environments should still remediate through normal emergency change controls.
Technical view
Instana Agent Operator builds 1.0.303 through 1.0.323 key cluster-scoped RBAC objects using only the InstanaAgent custom-resource name, without namespace disambiguation. An authenticated tenant can exploit a name collision across namespaces to overwrite or delete another tenant’s ClusterRoleBinding. CVSS 3.1 is 9.6, reflecting low-complexity network access, low privileges, changed scope, and high integrity and availability impact.
Likely exposure
Exposure is most likely in multi-tenant Kubernetes clusters running affected Instana Agent Operator builds where tenants can create InstanaAgent custom resources in their namespaces. Single-tenant deployments or environments preventing untrusted tenants from creating these resources may have lower practical exposure, although the affected software should still be reviewed.
Exploitation context
The supplied record does not report active exploitation, and the CVE is not listed as KEV in the bundle. Exploitation requires authenticated Kubernetes tenant access and permission to create a conflicting InstanaAgent resource. The described attack requires no user interaction and could cross namespace boundaries through shared cluster-scoped RBAC naming.
Researcher notes
The core issue is improper authorization design around cluster-scoped object identity, categorized as CWE-284. Namespace-local custom resources converge on RBAC objects named without namespace context, creating cross-namespace collision and deletion risk. The supplied sources do not state a fixed version, exploitation observations, or additional prerequisites beyond authenticated tenant capability; consult IBM’s advisory for exact remediation details.
Mitigation direction
- Review IBM advisory 7286070 and apply its documented fixed build or remediation.
- Prioritize affected multi-tenant clusters where untrusted tenants can create InstanaAgent resources.
- Temporarily restrict InstanaAgent resource creation to trusted administrators where operationally feasible.
- Audit and restore ClusterRoleBindings associated with Instana agents after remediation.
Validation and detection
- Inventory Instana Agent Operator builds and identify versions from 1.0.303 through 1.0.323.
- List InstanaAgent resources across namespaces and identify duplicate bare names.
- Inspect related ClusterRoleBindings for unexpected ownership, subjects, deletion, or recent modification.
- Confirm tenant roles cannot create InstanaAgent resources unless operationally required.
- After remediation, verify each tenant’s agent retains intended cluster monitoring access.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-284: Authorization and privilege behavior lookup
Authorization weaknesses can support privilege escalation and valid-account review, depending on exploit path. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupContainer behavior lookup
The affected technology mentions containers, so container-specific ATT&CK technique review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2026-19274 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Critical
- CVSS
- 9.6 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
SSVC decision data
CVSS vector scores
1 official scoreWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H3.15.8ibmVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
9.6CriticalVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
Vulnerability timeline
Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.
- CVE reservedCVE Program
The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.
- CVE publishedCVE Program
The CVE record was published.
- CVE updatedCVE Program
The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.
ADP provider summaries
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7286070CVE reference, ibm · vendor-advisory, patch
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Improper Access Control
Improper Access Control represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.