CVE-2026-115221VulnerabilityPublished 22 Oct 2026Updated 28 Oct 2026

FreeIPA. An improper authorization check

Affects freeipaSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-115221· Medium 5.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 22:31 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

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

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

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 Oct 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Ubuntu 26.10freeipa`pkg:deb/ubuntu/freeipa?arch=source&distro=stonking`Other threats	Affected =4.13.1-1 =4.13.1-1build1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 26.04 LTSfreeipa`pkg:deb/ubuntu/freeipa?arch=source&distro=resolute`Other threats	Affected =4.12.4-1 =4.12.4-2 =4.13.1-1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSfreeipa`pkg:deb/ubuntu/freeipa?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected 4.10.2-1 – 4.11.1-2 5 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 22.04 LTSfreeipa`pkg:deb/ubuntu/freeipa?arch=source&distro=jammy`Other threats	Affected 4.8.6-1ubuntu6 – 4.9.8-1 4 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 20.04 LTSfreeipa`pkg:deb/ubuntu/freeipa?arch=source&distro=focal`Other threats	Affected =4.8.1-2ubuntu1 =4.8.3-1 =4.8.6-1ubuntu2	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 18.04 LTSfreeipa`pkg:deb/ubuntu/freeipa?arch=source&distro=bionic`Other threats	Affected 4.4.4-3ubuntu1 – 4.7.0~pre1+git20180411-2ubuntu2 4 affected builds	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

A flaw was found in FreeIPA. An improper authorization check allows an authenticated host to retrieve and revoke digital certificates assigned to other users or services. This issue occurs because FreeIPA verifies ownership solely by matching the host name to the certificate's subject Common Name (CN), without confirming actual ownership in the directory service. Consequently, an enrolled host can disrupt services by revoking certificates belonging to other entities.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…