VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-123084: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2 · Expression Language Injection

Affects Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 22:34 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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	6.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 10 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 10 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 Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-24/hub-rhel8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-25/hub-rhel8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-26/hub-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-27/hub-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2python3.11-pulpcore	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2python3.12-pulpcore	Affected–	Fixed in–

Description

An **expression language injection** has been found in the HeaderContentGuard.permit function in publication.py of the content guard in the **Pulpcore** package. The guard is supposed to check a value in a request header. It saves a jq filter and runs that filter against the header when a client asks for content. The filter is not limited to the header, and jq's env builtin also returns the environment of the content process. A low-privileged network attacker or user who can create a header content guard and attach it to a distribution can save a filter that reads that environment. The content request is allowed or denied according to the filter result. Repeating the request lets that attacker or user recover the environment, including Pulp settings held there, such as the Django secret key or the database password.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…