VulnerabilityPublished 12 May 2026Updated 14 May 2026

CVE-2026-43513: Apache Tomcat · Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

Affects Apache TomcatSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 8.5.101 or 7.0.110 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 8.5.101, 7.0.110

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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 12 May 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

Upgrade org.apache.tomcat/tomcat to 8.5.101 or 7.0.110.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Tomcat	Affected >=11.0.0-M1 <=11.0.21 >=10.1.0-M1 <=10.1.54 >=9.0.0.M1 <=9.0.117 >=8.5.0 <=8.5.100 >=7.0.0 <=7.0.109	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.apache.tomcat/tomcat`pkg:maven/org.apache.tomcat/tomcat`Other threats	Affected =8.5.0 <8.5.101 =7.0.0 <7.0.110	Fixed in 8.5.101 7.0.110

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available. Users should upgrade affected Apache Tomcat instances to versions 11.0.22, 10.1.55, or 9.0.118 as recommended by the vendor. No other mitigation or temporary workaround is indicated. Patch status is confirmed by the vendor advisory embedded in the description.

Description

Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity vulnerability in LockOutRealm in Apache Tomcat. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.21, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.54, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.117, from 8.5.0 through 8.5.100, from 7.0.0 through 7.0.109. Older unsupported versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.22, 10.1.55 or 9.0.118 which fix the issue.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker to exploit improper case sensitivity handling in the LockOutRealm, potentially leading to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information (high confidentiality impact). There is no impact on integrity or availability. The attack can be performed remotely without privileges or user interaction, increasing the risk of exploitation. However, no known exploits are reported in the wild at this time.

CWE-178Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
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 19 May 2026, 18:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-178

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats