VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-125672: cockpit-storaged · Argument Injection

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-125672· Medium 6.6

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.6 Medium.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 15:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.6Medium

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	6.6

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 10 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 10 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-7vw6-56j5-6r97

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10cockpit	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6cockpit	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7cockpit	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8cockpit	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9cockpit	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

No complete mitigation is available without a code fix. As a partial mitigation, administrators should restrict local interactive console or desktop login access on hosts running Cockpit's Storage module to trusted users only. Additionally, users should carefully verify the Tang keyserver address in the 'Edit Tang keyserver' dialog before saving; addresses starting with a hyphen or otherwise malformed should not be accepted. Monitor Red Hat advisories for the release of an official patch.

Description

CVE-2026-125672 is a vulnerability in cockpit-storaged where a Tang keyserver address read from a clevis token in a LUKS header is concatenated into curl's argument vector without a proper '--' separator. This allows an attacker who can attach a crafted LUKS/clevis block device to cause curl to interpret an address starting with '-' as an option, leading to curl option injection. Exploitation requires a local unprivileged user with console or desktop login access and an administratively-privileged Cockpit user to interact with the affected device's Tang keyserver settings. The flaw can lead to arbitrary file read or write as the Cockpit session user. No complete mitigation exists without a code fix, but restricting local interactive access and verifying keyserver addresses can partially mitigate risk.

Impact

The vulnerability allows a local attacker with console or desktop login access to craft a LUKS/clevis block device that causes curl option injection when an administratively-privileged Cockpit user edits Tang keyserver settings. This can lead to arbitrary file read or write operations with the privileges of the Cockpit session user, impacting confidentiality and integrity. The attack requires user interaction and specific local access conditions, limiting remote exploitation. There is no impact on availability.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command (Argument Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (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 10 Nov 2026, 15:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats