🛡️ CVE-2026-61699 — nebula-mesh
Description
nebula-mesh: Certificate revocation is never enforced at the mesh
Summary
nebula-mesh revokes a host by adding its certificate fingerprint to a per-CA blocklist and shipping that list to every other agent on each poll. Slack's Nebula enforces certificate revocation ONLY through the pki.blocklist list in config.yml (no CRL/OCSP). The project's own code states this: internal/pki/durations.go:15 — "Revocation via the blocklist remains the immediate security control."
The server side is fully implemented (computes per-CA blocklist via GetBlocklistForCA, returns it in the agent-updates response, sets has_updates=true when non-empty). The agent side was never implemented:
1. The agent decodes the blocklist JSON field into UpdatesResponse.Blocklist (internal/agent/poller.go:33) and then DISCARDS it — poll() applies CertificatePEM, CACertPEM, ConfigYAML, but never references updates.Blocklist (internal/agent/poller.go:300-339).
2. The config generator has NO field to emit pki.blocklist — pkiSection is only ca/cert/key (internal/configgen/marshal.go:42-46) and GeneratorInput carries no blocklist (internal/configgen/generator.go:23-52). So even the server-rendered config.yml shipped via ConfigYAML cannot carry it.
Result: a blocked/offboarded/compromised host's certificate is never rejected by its peers. Its handshakes keep succeeding for the full remaining cert lifetime — up to 30 days for agent hosts (DefaultAgentCertDuration) and 365 days for mobile hosts (DefaultMobileCertDuration). Blocking a host in the UI/API has no effect on the data plane.
Affected components
- Agent drops the blocklist:
internal/agent/poller.go:33(decode target),internal/agent/poller.go:300-339(poll() applies cert/CA/config, never the blocklist). - Generator cannot emit it:
internal/configgen/marshal.go:42-46(pkiSection{CA,Cert,Key}),internal/configgen/generator.go:23-52(GeneratorInputhas no blocklist),internal/api/enroll.go:255-330(renderHostConfig, source of shipped ConfigYAML). - Server correctly produces/ships it (proves intent):
internal/store/sqlite.go:2034(GetBlocklistForCA),internal/api/updates.go:182-191(resp.Blocklist),internal/api/updates.go:277(has_updatesset on blocklist change). - Dead helper:
internal/pki/blocklist.go(Blocklisttype) is never used in non-test code — no server-side enforcement either.
Reachability (hop by hop)
1. Operator clicks Block on host B (or B is compromised/offboarded). B's fingerprint enters the per-CA blocklist table.
2. Every other host A under the same CA polls GET /api/v1/agent/updates; server returns blocklist: [<B-fp>, ...] and has_updates=true.
3. A's agent decodes Blocklist then discards it; poll() has no blocklist branch.
4. Even on a config re-render, configgen.Generate emits pki: {ca,cert,key} with no blocklist key (proven by PoC).
5. A's Nebula daemon has an empty blocklist and accepts handshakes from B's still-valid cert. B keeps full mesh access.
Impact
Revocation is the only in-band mechanism that isolates a compromised/offboarded host from a Nebula mesh. Because the blocklist never reaches any peer's config.yml, a Blocked host retains full overlay reachability to every peer under its CA (and internal services on the mesh) for up to 30d (agent) / 365d (mobile). An attacker who exfiltrates host.key+host.crt can run stock slackhq/nebula directly, ignore the agent's 403/410 poll responses, and stay connected after the operator revokes the host. Operator-visible state (UI shows blocked, audit log records it) is misleading.
Proof of Concept (benign)
internal/configgen/blocklist_poc_test.go renders a fully-populated host config and asserts the output contains the pki section but NO blocklist key:
```
$ go test ./internal/configgen/ -run TestPoC_NMESH001 -v
=== RUN TestPoC_NMESH001_GeneratedConfigOmitsBlocklist
CONFIRMED: generated config has a pki section but no blocklist key
pki:
ca: /etc/nebula/ca.crt
cert: /etc/nebula/host.crt
key: /etc/nebula/host.key
...
--- PASS
```
The agent half is verifiable by inspection: poll() has branches for CertificatePEM/CACertPEM/ConfigYAML/RekeyRequired but none for Blocklist.
Distinctness
NOT a duplicate of GHSA-339v / CVE-2026-53602 (revocation durability = a blocked host getting a NEW cert re-issued; its fix CheckIssuanceAllowed is present and orthogonal). This bug is that the EXISTING cert is never rejected at peers — the distribution/enforcement layer. Checked against all 17 known advisories; none cover blocklist application in the agent or pki.blocklist generation.
Remediation
1. Add Blocklist []safeString to pkiSection (yaml blocklist,omitempty) and GeneratorInput; consider also pki.disconnect_invalid: true.
2. Have the agent apply updates.Blocklist by re-rendering/rewriting config.yml + SIGHUP (same path as ConfigYAML). Simpl
How this vulnerability can be exploited
This issue can be reached over the network, attack complexity is low, an attacker needs low-level privileges on the target. No user interaction is required. The scope is unchanged, so the impact stays within the vulnerable component. Rated impact: confidentiality high, integrity high, availability none.
Affected software
CVE-2026-61699 is recorded against 1 package.
- github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh
Timeline and source
Published on 14 July 2026 and last revised on 21 July 2026. No public exploit is currently recorded for this entry. A vendor advisory or fix has been published. Record sourced from OSV.
References
github.com (Web)
github.com (Web)
github.com (Package)
github.com (Web)
Details
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Affected Packages
| Software | From version | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh | — | — |
References
Similar Threats
- Unknown GO-2026-5985
- High CVE-2026-53603
- High CVE-2026-53604
- Unknown CVE-2026-55512
- Unknown CVE-2026-55513
More CVE 2026 advisories
Browse all of CVE 2026 in the advisory index.
Site Security Check
Is nebula-mesh part of your stack?
CVE-2026-61699 is rated CVSS 8.0 High. BotEraser scans your installation against known CVE records and tells you whether this vulnerability applies to the versions you actually run.
Scan My Site Free →No credit card required · Results in minutes
ⓘ Data Notice: The information presented above has been compiled from publicly available internet sources. Boteraser aggregates this data solely for informational purposes and does not independently classify, evaluate, or endorse any findings about the vulnerabilities listed. The accuracy and completeness of this information is the sole responsibility of the original publishers. Boteraser and its operators accept no liability for any decisions made based on this data.