CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2026-15738

CVE-2026-15738 — Cross-namespace traffic interception via incorrect route precedence ordering in AWS Load Balancer Controller

Incorrect behavior order in the Gateway API listener-rule generation in Amazon AWS Load Balancer Controller before 3.4.2 might allow an authenticated remote user to intercept, spoof, or deny another namespace's gRPC traffic on a shared Gateway via a crafted HTTPRoute resource. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version 3.4.2.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, AMZN

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

amazon

aws_load_balancer_controller

CVSS base

8.5

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

Products (1)

aws load balancer controller

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.5CVSS 3.1HIGHcvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-653

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • amazonevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-653other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.