VulnerabilityPublished 25 Sep 2026Updated 29 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-61837: rabbitmq-server · Improper Authorization

Affects rabbitmq-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium · fixed in 4.3.3 : update rabbitmq-server when convenient.

Data as of 7 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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 4.3.3, 4.2.9, 4.1.14 +1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: High
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Sep 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 8 Nov 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 rabbitmq-server and rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server to 4.3.3, 4.2.9, 4.1.14 or 4.0.23.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.3.0 <4.3.3	Fixed in 4.3.3
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.2.0 <4.2.9	Fixed in 4.2.9
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.1.0 <4.1.14	Fixed in 4.1.14
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.0.0 <4.0.23	Fixed in 4.0.23
GitHubrabbitmq/rabbitmq-server`pkg:github/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server`Other threats	Affected <4.0.23 <4.1.14 <4.2.9 <4.3.3	Fixed in 4.0.23 4.1.14 4.2.9 4.3.3

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in rabbitmq-server versions 4.3.3, 4.2.9, 4.1.14, and 4.0.23. Users should upgrade to these or later versions to remediate the issue. No other mitigation is indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. From 4.0.0 until 4.3.3, 4.2.9, 4.1.14, and 4.0.23, AMQP 1.0 management GET /bindings exposes full binding topology to any authenticated AMQP user without resource/management permission checks. the AMQP 1.0 HTTP-over-AMQP management endpoint GET /bindings (the rabbitamqpmanagement handler) enumerates bindings between an arbitrary source exchange and destination queue/exchange in the caller's virtual host without performing any resource-level permission check. Unlike every sibling operation in the same module (which call checkresourceaccess / bindingchecks), the GET handler ignores the authenticated User and returns the binding list unchanged. As a result, any authenticated AMQP 1.0 client that can open a management link pair , including users with no management/monitoring/policymaker/administrator tag , can enumerate the complete binding topology (source exchanges, destination queues/exchanges, routing keys, and binding arguments) of the virtual host they can access. The equivalent HTTP management API (GET /api/bindings) Confidentiality impact: a non-management AMQP 1.0 user can enumerate the complete routing topology of any virtual host it can connect to , every (source exchange, destination queue/exchange, routing key, binding arguments) This issue is fixed in versions 4.3.3, 4.2.9, 4.1.14, and 4.0.23.

Impact

Any authenticated AMQP 1.0 user, even without management or monitoring privileges, can enumerate the full binding topology of the virtual host they connect to. This disclosure of routing topology information could aid attackers in understanding message flows and potentially planning further attacks. There is no indication of privilege escalation or direct message manipulation from this vulnerability alone.

Summary

RabbitMQ versions 4.0.0 through before 4.3.3 (and corresponding minor versions) contain an improper authorization flaw in the AMQP 1.0 HTTP-over-AMQP management endpoint GET /bindings. Unlike other management operations, this endpoint does not perform resource-level permission checks and returns the complete binding topology of the caller's virtual host to any authenticated AMQP 1.0 user, regardless of their management or monitoring privileges. This allows unauthorized enumeration of routing topology details. The vulnerability is addressed in versions 4.3.3, 4.2.9, 4.1.14, and 4.0.23.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 3 Oct 2026, 16:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-285, CWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats