Answer in brief
CVE-2026-102406 records a High severity (CVSS 8.8) vulnerability in Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key in Kibana Leading to Cross-Tenant Data Interception. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Elastic/Kibana (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
CVSS is 8.8. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Elastic/Kibana (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Elastic/Kibanageneric | >=8.14.0 <=8.19.21 || >=9.0.0 <=9.4.6 || >=9.5.0 <=9.5.3 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Oct 6, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Oct 6, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Oct 6, 2026
Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana could lead to cross-tenant data interception. In this context, "tenant" refers to a user or team sharing the same Kibana deployment, not a separate Elastic Cloud organization or customer. Kibana's Fleet package installation process allowed a user holding delegated Fleet package-management privileges, without direct Elasticsearch administrative privileges, to claim a data stream identifier already in use by another tenant. Because ownership of that identifier was not verified before Fleet applied the uploaded package's generated index and ingest-pipeline settings to already-existing infrastructure, an attacker could redirect an existing tenant's data stream through infrastructure under their control. This exposed the affected tenant's subsequently ingested data to unauthorized disclosure and modification, and prevented that data from reaching its intended destination. Interception could continue even after the malicious package was removed, requiring separate remediation of the affected infrastructure.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.