VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jul 2026Updated 4 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-12383: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8 · Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

Affects Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: 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 27 Jul 2026
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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat recommends ensuring that the EDA server is not directly accessible from untrusted networks and that all traffic routes through the Ansible Automation Platform Gateway, which performs proper mTLS validation. Network-level access controls should be configured to restrict source IPs that can reach the EDA backend API. Monitoring EDA event streams for unexpected changes in event counters is advised. If unauthorized access is suspected, mTLS client certificates should be reviewed and rotated due to the potential leakage of the expected Distinguished Name. Red Hat has released updates including for Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 that address this vulnerability. Users should apply these updates and follow the vendor's guidance.

Description

A flaw was found in the Event-Driven Ansible (EDA) server. The ExternalEventStreamViewSet uses permissive access controls (permission_classes=[AllowAny], authentication_classes=[]) and relies solely on the Subject HTTP header value for mTLS authentication without verifying that the header originated from a trusted proxy. Additionally, the expected certificate Distinguished Name is leaked in the 403 error response body. An attacker who can reach the EDA API endpoint with a spoofed Subject header can inject arbitrary events into mTLS-protected event streams, triggering downstream automation actions.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker who can reach the EDA API endpoint to spoof the Subject HTTP header and inject arbitrary events into mTLS-protected event streams. This can trigger unauthorized downstream automation actions, impacting the integrity of the automation platform. Confidentiality and availability are not affected. The flaw also leaks the expected certificate Distinguished Name in error responses, which lowers the difficulty of exploitation. The overall impact is high on integrity but does not affect confidentiality or availability.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Aug 2026, 13:48 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats