VulnerabilityPublished 23 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-84717: CWE-204

Source GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-84717· Medium 5.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : update Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8 when convenient.

Data as of 7 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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	5.3

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 23 Sep 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 8 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-2r6r-cm6p-cm76

What to do

Patches and advisories

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8automation-controller	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 9automation-controller	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 9automation-controller	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7ansible-automation-platform-27/controller-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

A security update is available from Red Hat for Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 that addresses this vulnerability along with several others. Users should apply the official patch as provided in Red Hat Advisory RHSA-2026:71113 to remediate this issue. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

CVE-2026-84717 is a vulnerability in the Ansible Automation Platform automation-controller where the unauthenticated Bitbucket Data Center webhook receiver skips HMAC signature verification for diagnostics:ping events after template lookup. This causes the endpoint to respond with HTTP 200 if a Job Template or Workflow Job Template has a Bitbucket DC webhook configured, and HTTP 403 otherwise. An unauthenticated attacker can use this behavior to enumerate which templates have Bitbucket DC webhooks configured without knowing the secret webhook key.

Impact

The impact is limited to information disclosure through enumeration of Job Template and Workflow Job Template IDs that have Bitbucket DC webhooks configured. There is no direct impact on confidentiality of data beyond this enumeration, no integrity or availability impact is described. The CVSS score is 5.3 (medium severity) reflecting the limited confidentiality impact and lack of authentication required.

CWE-204Observable Response Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
ICMP IP Total Length Field Probe (opens in a new tab)
ICMP IP 'ID' Field Error Message Probe (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (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 3 Nov 2026, 09:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-204

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats