CVE-2023-4956VulnerabilityPublished 7 Nov 2023Updated 7 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-4956: Red Hat Quay 3 · Clickjacking

Affects Red Hat Quay 3Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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 7 Nov 2023
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 2026-10-26.

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 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

AI-suggested

1. Implement HTTP response headers such as X-Frame-Options set to DENY or SAMEORIGIN to prevent the Quay config-editor page from being framed by malicious sites. 2. Use Content Security Policy (CSP) with the frame-ancestors directive to restrict which domains can embed the Quay interface. 3. Educate administrators to avoid clicking on suspicious links or interacting with embedded content from untrusted sources. 4. Monitor and audit configuration changes to detect unauthorized modifications promptly. 5. Apply any available patches or updates from Red Hat as soon as they are released. 6. Consider isolating administrative interfaces behind VPNs or internal networks to reduce exposure. 7. Employ browser security features and extensions that can block clickjacking attempts. 8. Conduct regular security awareness training focused on social engineering and UI redress attacks.

Description

A flaw was found in Quay. Clickjacking is when an attacker uses multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they intend to click on the top-level page. During the pentest, it has been detected that the config-editor page is vulnerable to clickjacking. This flaw allows an attacker to trick an administrator user into clicking on buttons on the config-editor panel, possibly reconfiguring some parts of the Quay instance.

Impact

For European organizations, the vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the availability and operational integrity of container image registries managed via Red Hat Quay 3. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized changes in configuration, potentially disrupting container deployment pipelines and impacting business-critical applications relying on containerized infrastructure. This disruption could cause downtime or degraded service availability, affecting sectors heavily dependent on container orchestration such as finance, telecommunications, and manufacturing. Since the vulnerability requires user interaction from an administrator, the risk is somewhat mitigated by proper user training and operational controls. However, given the widespread adoption of container technologies in Europe and the critical role of container registries, the threat should be taken seriously. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Nov 2025, 01:46 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats