CVE-2026-32694: Github.com/juju/juju Juju Affected By Confused Deputy Vulnerability

MODERATE
Advisory Identifier: GHSA-5cj2-rqqf-hx9p
CVSS 6.6
CWE-343
Published
Advisory Summary

CVE-2026-32694 is a MODERATE (CVSS 6.6) juju affected by confused deputy vulnerability (CWE-343: Predictable Value Range from Previous Values) affecting Github.com/juju/juju libraries in the Go ecosystem. The issue involves juju affected by confused deputy idor attack via predictable user specified id in juju secrets. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec.

CVE-2026-32694 at a Glance

CVE Identifier CVE-2026-32694
GHSA Identifier GHSA-5cj2-rqqf-hx9p
Severity MODERATE
CVSS v3.1 Base Score 6.6
CWE Classification CWE-343: Predictable Value Range from Previous Values
Affected Product Github.com/juju/juju
Package Ecosystem Go
Published Date
Last Updated

Security Impact

CVSS: 6.6

The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).

Attack Vector Network (AV:N)
Attack Complexity High (AC:H)
Privileges Required High (PR:H)
User Interaction None (UI:N)
Scope Unchanged (S:U)
Confidentiality High (C:H)
Integrity High (I:H)
Availability High (A:H)

How to Fix CVE-2026-32694

To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected Github.com/juju/juju dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.

github.com/juju/juju fixed: 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec
Upgrade github.com/juju/juju to 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec
Verify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:

inspect dependencies for github.com/juju/juju

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your application is affected by CVE-2026-32694, inspect your project dependencies for Github.com/juju/juju:

inspect dependencies for github.com/juju/juju

Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Github.com/juju/juju in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec), your application is affected.

Note: Verify declared build manifests and deployed runtime container environments.

Technical Details

Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis

This vulnerability is classified under CWE-343: Predictable Value Range from Previous Values, where the product's random number generator produces a series of values which, when observed, can be used to infer a relatively small range of possibilities for the next value that could be generated. In Github.com/juju/juju, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.

Source Advisory Statement

### Summary Predictable secret ID and lack of secret origin API enable confused deputy attacks on Juju workloads. ### Details A Juju application can create a secret and grant it to another integrated application (grantee). When they do so, the secret owner has to communicate the secret id to the grantee. The grantee, having received the secret id can load the secret content and perform operations on behalf of the secret owner. However, today the grantee has no way to determine which granted secret belongs to which owner. Instead the grantee relies on: - being able to read the secret by id (secret was in fact granted, by some entity) - secret id was received over a relation (the remote end of the relation is presumed to be secret owner) Additionally, secret IDs are XID, which are predictable, here two secrets created by two distinct apps in the same K8s model close in time: ``` d34vsl7mp25c76301hs0 time (UTC): 2025-09-17 00:18:28 (Unix 1758068308) machine: f6c88a pid: 50072 counter: 6294648 d34vslfmp25c76301hsg time (UTC): 2025-09-17 00:18:29 (Unix 1758068309) machine: f6c88a pid: 50072 counter: 6294649 ``` ### PoC This allows for an IDOR attack where: - actors: - a **Good** application (the owner of the _Victim_), - an **Evil** application, and - a **Provider** application (the _Confused Deputy_) - relations: **Good** --- **Provider**, **Evil** --- **Provider** - secrets: **Good** and **Evil** create _Secrets_, granting them to the **Provider** and communicate _Secret IDs_ with the **Provider**. - semantics: the **Provider** performs some operation on behalf of the **Good**/**Evil** using the _Secret_. - weakness 1: **Evil** can guess the _Secret ID_ that **Good** granted and communicated to **Provider**. - weakness 2: _Juju_ doesn't provide the **Provider** application the facility to verify the provenance of the _Secret IDs_. - exploit: **Evil** passes **Good**'s secret id to **Provider**. - bypass: **Provider** performs _evil_ operation with **Good**'s _Secret ID_ on behalf of **Evil**. **Evil** could benefit by: - exfiltrating **Good**'s _Secret_ via reflection. - reading or mutating **Good**'s resources accessible via **Good*'s _Secret_. ### Impact This requires a complex setup. Not all shared secrets are used like above, so an actual exploit requires a very specific relation interface, specific semantics of the data in the databag, and an administrator having a reasonable need to deploy two apps (one evil, one good) related to the same (third) provider app. If exploited, it can be very hard to determine what went wrong after the fact. ### Suggested remediation #### 1. Longer, random secret IDs For example, if the secret id was extended with a 128-bit nonce, guessing a sibling secret ID would be infeasible, and an attack of this style would require another weakness (e.g. secret IDs exposed in logs) #### 2. Grantee secret API Today, an app is not allowed to call `secret-info-get` on the granted secret. Additionally, granted secrets are not included in the `secret-ids` output. Suppose that the Provider could run these hook tools: ```command (provider/0)> secret-ids my-own-secret-123 (provider/0)> secret-ids --grants good-secret-id-42 evil-secret-id-43 (provider/0)> secret-info-get good-secret-id-42 good-secret-id-42: revision: 1 label: "" owner: good grant-relation-id: 12 rotation: never ``` The Provider would then able to validate the secret ID it's about to use against: - the relation in which the secret ID has been passed (good relation 12 or evil relation 14) - the application or unit name of the secret owner (good or evil)

CVE-2026-32694 Affected Github.com/juju/juju Versions

1 component(s)
Fixed Versions:
0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
github.com/juju/juju
Go
≥ 0.0.0-20221021155847-35c560704ee2
< 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec
0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-32694?
CVE-2026-32694 is a security vulnerability in Github.com/juju/juju involving Juju affected by Confused Deputy IDOR attack via Predictable user specified ID in Juju Secrets under CWE-343: Predictable Value Range from Previous Values.
Which Github.com/juju/juju versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec across affected packages: github.com/juju/juju.
What version fixes CVE-2026-32694?
Upgrading to 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is github.com/juju/juju affected?
Yes, github.com/juju/juju is affected in releases prior to 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec. Upgrade your dependency to 0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec or later.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-32694?
CVE-2026-32694 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.6 (MODERATE) with vector string CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H.
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-32694?
CVE-2026-32694 is classified under CWE-343: Predictable Value Range from Previous Values (The product's random number generator produces a series of values which, when observed, can be used to infer a relatively small range of possibilities for the next value that could be generated.).
How can I check Go dependencies for CVE-2026-32694?
Run the dependency tree command: 'inspect dependencies for github.com/juju/juju'. This command lists direct and transitive dependencies in your build configuration so you can verify if a vulnerable version is resolved.
Machine-readable OSV JSON OSV v1.5 Schema
Normalized schema output
{
  "schema_version" : "1.4.0",
  "id" : "GHSA-5cj2-rqqf-hx9p",
  "modified" : "2026-03-19T17:43:47Z",
  "published" : "2026-03-19T17:43:47Z",
  "aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-32694" ],
  "summary" : "Juju affected by Confused Deputy IDOR attack via Predictable user specified ID in Juju Secrets",
  "details" : "### Summary\n\nPredictable secret ID and lack of secret origin API enable confused deputy attacks on Juju workloads.\n\n### Details\n\nA Juju application can create a secret and grant it to another integrated application (grantee).\n\nWhen they do so, the secret owner has to communicate the secret id to the grantee.\n\nThe grantee, having received the secret id can load the secret content and perform operations on behalf of the secret owner.\n\nHowever, today the grantee has no way to determine which granted secret belongs to which owner.\n\nInstead the grantee relies on:\n- being able to read the secret by id (secret was in fact granted, by some entity)\n- secret id was received over a relation (the remote end of the relation is presumed to be secret owner)\n\nAdditionally, secret IDs are XID, which are predictable, here two secrets created by two distinct apps in the same K8s model close in time:\n```\nd34vsl7mp25c76301hs0\ntime (UTC): 2025-09-17 00:18:28 (Unix 1758068308)\nmachine: f6c88a\npid: 50072\ncounter: 6294648\n\nd34vslfmp25c76301hsg\ntime (UTC): 2025-09-17 00:18:29 (Unix 1758068309)\nmachine: f6c88a\npid: 50072\ncounter: 6294649\n```\n\n### PoC\n\nThis allows for an IDOR attack where:\n- actors:\n  - a **Good** application (the owner of the _Victim_),\n  - an **Evil** application, and\n  - a **Provider** application (the _Confused Deputy_)\n- relations: **Good** --- **Provider**, **Evil** --- **Provider**\n- secrets: **Good** and **Evil** create _Secrets_, granting them to the **Provider** and communicate _Secret IDs_ with the **Provider**.\n- semantics: the **Provider** performs some operation on behalf of the **Good**/**Evil** using the _Secret_.\n- weakness 1: **Evil** can guess the _Secret ID_ that **Good** granted and communicated to **Provider**.\n- weakness 2: _Juju_ doesn't provide the **Provider** application the facility to verify the provenance of the _Secret IDs_.\n- exploit: **Evil** passes **Good**'s secret id to **Provider**.\n- bypass: **Provider** performs _evil_ operation with **Good**'s _Secret ID_ on behalf of **Evil**.\n\n**Evil** could benefit by:\n- exfiltrating **Good**'s _Secret_ via reflection.\n- reading or mutating **Good**'s resources accessible via **Good*'s _Secret_.\n\n### Impact\n\nThis requires a complex setup.\n\nNot all shared secrets are used like above, so an actual exploit requires a very specific relation interface, specific semantics of the data in the databag, and an administrator having a reasonable need to deploy two apps (one evil, one good) related to the same (third) provider app.\n\nIf exploited, it can be very hard to determine what went wrong after the fact.\n\n### Suggested remediation\n\n#### 1. Longer, random secret IDs\n\nFor example, if the secret id was extended with a 128-bit nonce, guessing a sibling secret ID would be infeasible, and an attack of this style would require another weakness (e.g. secret IDs exposed in logs)\n\n#### 2. Grantee secret API\n\nToday, an app is not allowed to call `secret-info-get` on the granted secret.\nAdditionally, granted secrets are not included in the `secret-ids` output.\n\nSuppose that the Provider could run these hook tools:\n```command\n(provider/0)> secret-ids\nmy-own-secret-123\n\n(provider/0)> secret-ids --grants\ngood-secret-id-42\nevil-secret-id-43\n\n(provider/0)> secret-info-get good-secret-id-42\ngood-secret-id-42:\n  revision: 1\n  label: \"\"\n  owner: good\n  grant-relation-id: 12\n  rotation: never\n```\n\nThe Provider would then able to validate the secret ID it's about to use against:\n- the relation in which the secret ID has been passed (good relation 12 or evil relation 14)\n- the application or unit name of the secret owner (good or evil)",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V3",
    "score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H"
  } ],
  "affected" : [ {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "Go",
      "name" : "github.com/juju/juju"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "0.0.0-20221021155847-35c560704ee2"
      }, {
        "fixed" : "0.0.0-20260319091847-d06919eb03ec"
      } ]
    } ]
  } ],
  "references" : [ {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/juju/juju/security/advisories/GHSA-5cj2-rqqf-hx9p"
  }, {
    "type" : "ADVISORY",
    "url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32694"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/juju/juju/commit/d06919eb03ec68156818bcc304b5fe1c39a8f9e9"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/juju/juju"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-343" ],
    "severity" : "MODERATE",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2026-03-19T17:43:47Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : "2026-03-18T14:16:40Z"
  }
}