VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-121885: CWE-807

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-121885· Medium 6.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 17:20 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:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

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-7fhf-8vg3-7vrp

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10podman	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8container-tools:rhel8/podman	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9podman	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Hardened Imagespodman	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4podman	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Do not use Podman's auto-update feature on untrusted containers or images. Inspect container image labels before running with the command 'podman image inspect --format '.Config.Labels'' and verify that 'io.containers.autoupdate' and 'PODMAN_SYSTEMD_UNIT' labels are not set. For existing containers, ensure auto-update labels are correctly configured and only present on intended containers. In default Red Hat Enterprise Linux configurations, podman-auto-update is disabled, so no action is required unless it has been explicitly enabled.

Description

A vulnerability in Podman allows an attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) by supplying a container image with crafted metadata labels. Podman's auto-update mechanism trusts these labels to decide which system services to restart. If a user runs such a malicious container and auto-update processes it, arbitrary systemd services may be restarted with the user's privileges, potentially shutting down the host system if Podman runs with administrative rights. The vulnerability requires user interaction to pull and run an untrusted container image. In default Red Hat Enterprise Linux configurations, the auto-update timer is disabled, and rootless containers have limited systemd control, reducing risk.

Impact

The vulnerability allows denial of service by restarting arbitrary systemd services with the privileges of the user running Podman. If Podman runs with administrative privileges, this can lead to host system shutdown. There is no impact on confidentiality or integrity. The attack requires user interaction to run a malicious container image. Default configurations reduce exposure since auto-update is not enabled by default and rootless containers limit systemd control to user sessions.

CWE-807Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (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, 17:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-807

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats