VulnerabilityPublished 9 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-119079: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · Incorrect Behavior Order: Early Amplification

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 19:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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	7.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: 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: 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 9 Nov 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 9 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10krb5	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6krb5	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7krb5	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8krb5	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9krb5	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Hardened Imageskrb5	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat advises restricting incoming TCP traffic on port 88 to trusted internal networks or authorized administrative hosts using firewalld. This can be done by adding rich rules to permit TCP port 88 only from trusted network CIDRs and removing public or unauthenticated access to port 88/tcp, followed by reloading the firewall configuration. This mitigation prevents exploitation by blocking unauthenticated TCP requests from untrusted sources.

Description

CVE-2026-119079 is a denial of service vulnerability in the MIT Kerberos 5 implementation used by Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10. The flaw occurs in the decode_sequence_of() function, which inefficiently grows an array one element at a time when decoding certain ASN.1 sequences. Remote attackers can exploit this by sending unauthenticated AS-REQ or TGS-REQ messages with large SEQUENCE OF fields over TCP, causing excessive CPU consumption in the Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) daemon. This vulnerability does not allow data disclosure or code execution but can degrade KDC availability. Mitigation involves restricting TCP port 88 access to trusted networks using firewall rules.

Impact

Remote unauthenticated attackers can cause a denial of service by overwhelming the Kerberos KDC daemon with CPU-intensive processing of specially crafted requests. This leads to degraded availability of the KDC service. There is no impact on confidentiality or integrity, and no remote code execution is possible. Systems that restrict TCP port 88 access to trusted networks are less exposed. The vulnerability affects availability only.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Nov 2026, 19:07 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats