Vulnerability Monitor

The vendors, products, and vulnerabilities you care about

CVE-2021-21378


Envoy is a cloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxy. In Envoy version 1.17.0 an attacker can bypass authentication by presenting a JWT token with an issuer that is not in the provider list when Envoy's JWT Authentication filter is configured with the `allow_missing` requirement under `requires_any` due to a mistake in implementation. Envoy's JWT Authentication filter can be configured with the `allow_missing` requirement that will be satisfied if JWT is missing (JwtMissed error) and fail if JWT is presented or invalid. Due to a mistake in implementation, a JwtUnknownIssuer error was mistakenly converted to JwtMissed when `requires_any` was configured. So if `allow_missing` was configured under `requires_any`, an attacker can bypass authentication by presenting a JWT token with an issuer that is not in the provider list. Integrity may be impacted depending on configuration if the JWT token is used to protect against writes or modifications. This regression was introduced on 2020/11/12 in PR 13839 which fixed handling `allow_missing` under RequiresAny in a JwtRequirement (see issue 13458). The AnyVerifier aggregates the children verifiers' results into a final status where JwtMissing is the default error. However, a JwtUnknownIssuer was mistakenly treated the same as a JwtMissing error and the resulting final aggregation was the default JwtMissing. As a result, `allow_missing` would allow a JWT token with an unknown issuer status. This is fixed in version 1.17.1 by PR 15194. The fix works by preferring JwtUnknownIssuer over a JwtMissing error, fixing the accidental conversion and bypass with `allow_missing`. A user could detect whether a bypass occurred if they have Envoy logs enabled with debug verbosity. Users can enable component level debug logs for JWT. The JWT filter logs will indicate that there is a request with a JWT token and a failure that the JWT token is missing.


Security Impact Summary

This vulnerability carries a HIGH severity rating with a CVSS v3.1 score of 8.2, indicating it can be exploited remotely over the network with relatively low complexity without requiring user interaction and does not require pre-existing privileges . The vulnerability impacts confidentiality (data exposure), limited integrity, for affected systems. Impacting 1 product from envoyproxy organizations running these solutions should prioritize assessment and patching.

Historical Context

Reported in 2021, this vulnerability emerged during an era marked by increased sophistication in supply chain attacks, cloud infrastructure vulnerabilities, and software-as-a-service (SaaS) security challenges. Security practices during this period emphasized zero-trust architectures, container security, and API protection.


Published

2021-03-11T03:15:12.163

Last Modified

2026-06-17T03:35:26.710

Status

Modified

Source

[email protected]

Severity

CVSSv3.1: 8.2 (HIGH)

CVSSv2 Vector

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N

  • Access Vector: NETWORK
  • Access Complexity: LOW
  • Authentication: NONE
  • Confidentiality Impact: PARTIAL
  • Integrity Impact: PARTIAL
  • Availability Impact: NONE
Exploitability Score

10.0

Impact Score

4.9

Weaknesses
  • Type: Secondary
    CWE-287
    CWE-303
  • Type: Primary
    CWE-287

Affected Vendors & Products
Type Vendor Product Version/Range Vulnerable?
Application envoyproxy envoy 1.17.0 Yes

References

How SecUtils Interprets This CVE

SecUtils normalizes and enriches National Vulnerability Database (NVD) records by standardizing vendor and product identifiers, aggregating vulnerability metadata from both NVD and MITRE sources, and providing structured context for security teams. For envoyproxy's affected products, we extract Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) data, Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) classifications, CVSS severity metrics, and reference data to enable rapid vulnerability prioritization and asset correlation. This record contains no exploit code, proof-of-concept instructions, or attack methodologies—only defensive intelligence necessary for patch management, risk assessment, and security operations.