VulnerabilityPublished 21 Jul 2026Updated 22 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-15927: Server-Side Request Forgery

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-15927· Medium 6.8

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : update Red Hat Quay 3.10 when convenient.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 00:01 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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	6.8

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 21 Jul 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 5 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-9rpm-rwwc-xw43

What to do

Patches and advisories

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Quay 3.10quay/quay-rhel8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Quay 3.12quay/quay-rhel8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Quay 3.14quay/quay-rhel8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Quay 3.15quay/quay-rhel8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Quay 3.16quay/quay-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Quay 3.17quay/quay-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released security updates for Red Hat Quay versions 3.9.25 and 3.12.21 that address this vulnerability. Users should apply these official patches as soon as possible. Prior to applying these updates, ensure all previously released errata relevant to your system have been applied. No alternative mitigations or workarounds are specified in the vendor advisories.

Description

A vulnerability in Red Hat Quay's repository-level mirror configuration feature allows repository administrators to supply a crafted hostname that causes the Quay mirror worker to make unauthorized requests to internal network services or cloud metadata endpoints. This occurs because the POST and PUT handlers in endpoints/api/mirror.py accept an external_reference parameter without proper SSRF validation, unlike organization-level mirror handlers. The flaw has a CVSS score of 6.8 and is classified as medium severity.

Impact

An attacker with repository administrator privileges can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to cause the Quay mirror worker to make unauthorized network requests to internal services or cloud metadata endpoints. This can lead to disclosure of sensitive information from internal resources, impacting confidentiality. There is no impact on integrity or availability. The vulnerability requires high privileges (repository admin) and does not require user interaction.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (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

Patches and advisories

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2026, 15:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats