VulnerabilityPublished 12 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-126643: Cleartext Storage Flaw Was Found

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-126643· Medium 6.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 13:35 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Nov 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 12 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-frcr-3h69-qj8x

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-25/gateway-rhel8-operator	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-25/gateway-rhel9-operator	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-26/gateway-rhel9-operator	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-27/gateway-rhel9-operator	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat advises restricting OpenShift RBAC permissions so that only principals already trusted to read the corresponding Kubernetes Secrets have permission to read the AutomationController custom resources. If untrusted principals may have accessed the AutomationController CR, rotate the resource-server secret to prevent unauthorized use. No generic mitigations beyond RBAC restriction and secret rotation are recommended.

Description

CVE-2026-126643 is a cleartext storage vulnerability in the AAP Gateway Operator used in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 and later. The operator copies a protected resource-server secret in plaintext into the AutomationController custom resource, exposing it to any user with read access to that resource but without permission to read the original Kubernetes Secret. This breaks RBAC separation and risks disclosure of a sensitive authentication secret. The secret may also be exposed in Kubernetes API storage, GitOps histories, manifests, and audit data. Disclosure could allow impersonation of a trusted Controller service and access to privileged APIs.

Impact

The vulnerability leads to disclosure of a sensitive resource-server secret used for trusted service authentication within the Ansible Automation Platform. Any user with read access to the AutomationController custom resource but without permission to read the underlying Kubernetes Secret can obtain this secret in plaintext. This breaks RBAC separation and may allow the user to impersonate the Controller service and access privileged APIs. The secret may also be exposed in Kubernetes API storage, GitOps and Argo diffs, rendered manifests, support bundles, and audit data. The demonstrated impact is confidentiality loss only; no integrity or availability impacts have been shown. The potential for further escalation depends on service authorization policies but has not been demonstrated.

CWE-312Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to encrypt the data at rest.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
In some systems/environments such as cloud, the use of "double encryption" (at both the software and hardware layer) might be required, and the developer might be solely responsible for both layers, instead of shared responsibility with the administrator of the broader system/environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Nov 2026, 13:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-312

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats