VulnerabilityPublished 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-28295: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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 26 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 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 10gvfs	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6gvfs	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7gvfs	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8gvfs	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9gvfs	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-28295, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Avoid connecting to untrusted or unknown FTP servers, especially those outside the organization or internet. 2) Configure FTP clients or GVfs to restrict or validate PASV response IP addresses, ensuring connections are only made to expected or internal IP ranges. 3) Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to limit outbound connections from client machines to only necessary IP addresses and ports, preventing arbitrary connections triggered by malicious PASV responses. 4) Monitor network traffic for unusual outbound FTP data connections to unexpected IPs or ports. 5) Educate users about the risks of connecting to untrusted FTP servers and implement policies restricting FTP usage to trusted sources. 6) Stay updated with Red Hat security advisories for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 7) Consider disabling or replacing the FTP GVfs backend with more secure file transfer protocols or clients that validate PASV responses. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling and validating the PASV response handling and limiting the ability of clients to make arbitrary network connections.

Description

A flaw was found in the FTP GVfs backend. A malicious FTP server can exploit this vulnerability by providing an arbitrary IP address and port in its passive mode (PASV) response. The client unconditionally trusts this information and attempts to connect to the specified endpoint, allowing the malicious server to probe for open ports accessible from the client's network.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-28295 is the potential for attackers controlling malicious FTP servers to perform internal network reconnaissance by leveraging vulnerable clients. This can lead to the disclosure of internal IP addresses, open ports, and services that are otherwise inaccessible to the attacker. Such information can be used to plan further attacks, including lateral movement, exploitation of internal services, or targeted attacks against critical infrastructure. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the client system, it increases the attack surface by revealing network topology and accessible services. Organizations with sensitive internal networks, segmented environments, or critical infrastructure could face increased risk if attackers gain insight into internal network configurations. The requirement for user interaction (connecting to a malicious FTP server) limits the scope somewhat, but phishing or social engineering could be used to induce such connections. Overall, the vulnerability poses a moderate risk, especially in environments where FTP is used and users may connect to untrusted servers.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 20:10 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats