VulnerabilityPublished 29 May 2026

CVE-2026-10078: Red Hat Quay 3 · Use of HTTP Request With Sensitive Query String

Affects Red Hat Quay 3Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.7 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% 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:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: 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: 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 29 May 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 30 Oct 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red HatRed Hat Quay 3	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until an official fix is available, organizations should minimize log exposure of URLs containing sensitive query parameters, restrict access to logs, and consider alternative OAuth validation configurations that do not transmit credentials in query strings.

Description

A flaw was found in the Quay config-tool's GitLab OAuth validator. This vulnerability causes sensitive credentials, specifically client_id and client_secret, to be transmitted as plaintext in URL query parameters during POST requests to the GitLab endpoint. This insecure transmission can lead to the disclosure of these credentials in various system logs, such as server access logs, reverse proxy logs, and other monitoring systems. An attacker with access to these logs could potentially obtain these credentials, leading to unauthorized information disclosure.

Impact

The primary impact is the potential unauthorized disclosure of sensitive OAuth credentials if an attacker gains access to system or proxy logs containing the plaintext query strings. This could lead to credential compromise and unauthorized access to GitLab OAuth-protected resources. However, exploitation requires access to logs and high privileges, limiting the overall risk. There is no indication of direct impact on system integrity or availability.

Summary

The vulnerability involves the transmission of sensitive OAuth credentials (client_id and client_secret) in the URL query string during POST requests to the GitLab endpoint by the Quay config-tool's GitLab OAuth validator in Red Hat Quay 3. Because URLs and their query parameters are commonly logged by servers and proxies, this practice risks exposing these credentials in plaintext within logs. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 2.7, indicating a low severity issue with network attack vector, low complexity, and requiring high privileges.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…