VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jul 2026Updated 14 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-18369: Red Hat Certificate System 10.4 EUS for RHEL-8 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Red Hat Certificate System 10.4 EUS for RHEL-8Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

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

EPSS

0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation: No evidence of active exploitation and no public proof of concept
Automatable: Attackers can reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-07-30.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 30 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 Hat Certificate System 10.4 EUS for RHEL-8redhat-pki:10	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Certificate System 10redhat-pki:10/redhat-pki	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Certificate System 11redhat-pki	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Certificate System 9pki-core	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Certificate System 9redhat-pki	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10dogtag-pki	Affected–	Fixed in–

Description

A flaw was found in Dogtag PKI's ACME responder where the HTTP-01 challenge validator accepts IP address literals as dns identifiers and follows HTTP redirects without validating that the target is a public address. An unauthenticated ACME account holder can exploit this to perform server-side request forgery (SSRF), making the Dogtag server send HTTP GET requests to internal network services. With the InMemory database backend, the response body of internal targets is disclosed to the attacker through the ACME challenge error.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…