VulnerabilityPublished 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-28296: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · CRLF Injection

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% 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
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 30 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.
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 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-2026-28296, organizations should prioritize applying official patches from Red Hat as soon as they become available to address the input validation flaw in the FTP GVfs backend. In the interim, administrators can restrict or disable FTP GVfs backend usage where feasible to reduce exposure. Implement network-level controls such as firewall rules to limit FTP access to trusted hosts and monitor FTP traffic for anomalous command sequences indicative of CRLF injection attempts. Employ application-layer input validation to sanitize or reject file paths containing CRLF characters before processing. Additionally, consider deploying intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures targeting CRLF injection patterns in FTP traffic. Educate users about the risks of interacting with untrusted file paths or FTP servers. Regularly audit FTP server configurations and logs for suspicious activity. Finally, maintain an up-to-date inventory of systems running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 to ensure timely patch deployment and vulnerability management.

Description

A flaw was found in the FTP GVfs backend. A remote attacker could exploit this input validation vulnerability by supplying specially crafted file paths containing carriage return and line feed (CRLF) sequences. These unsanitized sequences allow the attacker to terminate intended FTP commands and inject arbitrary FTP commands, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution or other severe impacts.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential for remote attackers to inject arbitrary FTP commands by exploiting unsanitized CRLF sequences in file paths. This can lead to unauthorized command execution within the FTP session context, which may allow attackers to manipulate FTP server behavior, access unauthorized files, or escalate attacks depending on server configuration. Although the CVSS score indicates limited confidentiality impact and no integrity or availability impact, the ability to inject commands remotely without authentication poses a risk to organizations relying on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 for FTP services. If exploited, this could facilitate further attacks such as data exfiltration, unauthorized file manipulation, or lateral movement within networks. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability remains a concern for environments with exposed FTP services or where user interaction with malicious file paths is possible. Organizations with critical FTP infrastructure or those using GVfs extensively should consider this a moderate risk that requires timely remediation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Mar 2026, 16:35 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats