vulnerability / NVI-00010638 / Revision 2
Talos Linux: Support bundle does not redact registry credentials
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for github.com/siderolabs/talos. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
3.3 low
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
3.3 LOW (3.1)
security-advisories@github.com severity; no combined Null risk score.
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
github.com/siderolabs/talos
source listed< 1.14.0-alpha.0.0.20260513110206-76080416beee
### Summary When generating a support bundle with `talosctl support` the credentials entered for private registries are included in the bundle. ### Details Within the generated support bundle, inside `resources/registryconfigs.cri.talos.dev.yaml` the `auth` field of the spec is retained. The same, potentially sensitive information is present within `etcfilespecs.files.talos.dev.yaml`. ### PoC Simply run `talosctl -n [...] support` on a cluster with a `RegistryAuthConfig` resource ### Impact The problem itself is minor, however, anyone who has ever uploaded a support.zip bundle on a github issue, slack thread or public forum could have potentially leaked their internal authentication parameters for a private registry. In most situations, if the network and credentials are set correctly, this should not be a problem. On the other hand, if the affected registry is publicly accessible, and the provided credentials have write access to it, this could lead to possibly serious consequences, from denial of service, to data loss and possibly existing tag hijacking leading to supply chain compromise, for the affected parties which were under the impression that the support bundle is
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. NIST National Vulnerability Database
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
- NVD lastModified does not establish freshness of every associated CPE record.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-7cxh-94cf-mfp6 ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- CVE-2026-77564 ↗
NIST National Vulnerability Database · official catalog
Observed . This product uses data from the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 2 ·
Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.