CVE-2023-5115VulnerabilityPublished 18 Dec 2023Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-5115: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.3 for RHEL 8 · Absolute Path Traversal

Affects Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.3 for RHEL 8Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 62% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 18 Dec 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. Apply official patches from Red Hat as soon as they become available to address CVE-2023-5115. 2. Until patches are released, restrict the execution of Ansible roles to trusted sources only and avoid running roles from unverified or external repositories. 3. Implement strict validation and scanning of Ansible roles for malicious content, including detection of symbolic links that could lead to path traversal. 4. Use containerization or sandboxing techniques to isolate Ansible execution environments, limiting the scope of file system access. 5. Monitor file system changes on hosts managed by Ansible for unexpected modifications, especially outside designated directories. 6. Enforce the principle of least privilege for users and automation accounts executing Ansible roles to reduce the risk of privilege escalation. 7. Educate administrators and DevOps teams about the risks of executing untrusted automation content and encourage secure role development practices. 8. Review and harden Ansible configuration settings to limit role execution paths and disable unnecessary features that could be exploited.

Description

An absolute path traversal attack exists in the Ansible automation platform. This flaw allows an attacker to craft a malicious Ansible role and make the victim execute the role. A symlink can be used to overwrite a file outside of the extraction path.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of systems managed via Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.3 on RHEL 8. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to overwrite critical system or application files, potentially leading to unauthorized code execution, configuration corruption, or disruption of automated workflows. This can undermine trust in automation processes, cause downtime, or facilitate further lateral movement within networks. Given the reliance on Ansible for managing infrastructure as code, the impact could cascade across multiple systems, amplifying operational risk. Confidentiality and availability impacts are limited, but the integrity compromise can have severe consequences for compliance, especially in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure prevalent in Europe. Organizations using automated deployment pipelines or third-party roles without strict validation are at increased risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat but does not eliminate the potential for targeted attacks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Nov 2025, 17:46 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats