VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026Updated 15 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-1531: Red Hat Satellite 6.16 for RHEL 8 redhat-satellite · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects Red Hat Satellite 6.16 for RHEL 8 redhat-satelliteSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High · fixed in Red Hat package updates : patch the Red Hat redhat/redhat-satellite package soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.18.4, 6.17.7, 6.17

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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 2 Feb 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

Upgrade the Red Hat redhat/redhat-satellite package to 6.18.4, 6.17.7 or 6.17.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hatredhat/redhat-satellite`pkg:rpm/redhat/redhat-satellite`Other threats	Affected >=6.16 <6.17 >=6.17 <6.17.7 >=6.18 <6.18.4	Fixed in 6.17 6.17.7 6.18.4

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released official patches that address this vulnerability. Users should apply the updates for Red Hat Satellite versions 6.16, 6.17, and 6.18 as specified in advisories RHSA-2026:5968 and RHSA-2026:5970. Before applying these updates, ensure all previously released errata relevant to the system are applied. Detailed update instructions are available in the Red Hat Satellite documentation. Applying these patches will restore proper SSL certificate validation and prevent the insecure default that allows MITM attacks. No additional mitigations are required once the update is applied.

Description

A flaw was found in foreman_kubevirt. When configuring the connection to OpenShift, the system disables SSL verification if a Certificate Authority (CA) certificate is not explicitly set. This insecure default allows a remote attacker, capable of intercepting network traffic between Satellite and OpenShift, to perform a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack. Such an attack could lead to the disclosure or alteration of sensitive information.

Impact

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability allows a remote attacker who can intercept network traffic between Red Hat Satellite and OpenShift to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure or modification of sensitive information transmitted over the affected connection. The vulnerability compromises confidentiality and integrity but does not affect availability. The CVSS score of 8.1 indicates a high impact on confidentiality and integrity with relatively low complexity to exploit.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Jul 2026, 08:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats