VulnerabilityPublished 23 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-67240: rabbitmq-server · ReDoS

Affects rabbitmq-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.3 Low : upgrade to 4.3.1 or 4.2.7 when convenient.

Data as of 6 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.3.1, 4.2.7

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
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 23 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 6 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 4.3.1 or 4.2.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.3.0 <4.3.1	Fixed in 4.3.1
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.2.0 <4.2.7	Fixed in 4.2.7
GitHubrabbitmq/rabbitmq-server`pkg:github/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server`Other threats	Affected <4.2.7 >=4.2.0 <4.3.1 >=4.3.0	Fixed in 4.2.7 4.3.1

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 4.2.7 and 4.3.1. Users should upgrade to these or later versions to remediate the issue. No additional mitigation is required if these versions are in use.

Description

RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1, pattern_to_regex maps % -> .*? and _ -> ., then compiles ^...$ with only [unicode]; re:run is called with only [{capture, none}] - no explicit match_limit. A pattern like %_%_..._%X becomes ^.*?..*?.....*?.X$ with overlapping lazy quantifiers. The whole-expression cap is ?MAX_EXPRESSION_LENGTH=4096 chars / ?MAX_TOKENS=200; a LIKE string literal is one token, so ~2000 %_ pairs fit. SQL filters are accepted unconditionally at rabbit_amqp_session.erl:3264 (no feature flag). Evaluated per-message at rabbit_stream_queue.erl:1439. OTP's default 10M match_limit caps each match at ~100-200 ms (not seconds), and the re NIF yields to the scheduler. An authenticated AMQP 1.0 consumer with read+write on a stream queue can cause ~100-200 ms of CPU per delivered message via a crafted LIKE filter, multiplied across thousands of messages and parallel sessions - a substantial backtracking-driven CPU amplification. Preconditions include AMQP 1.0 with stream queues in use Attacker can attach a receiver with a filter (read permission) and publish messages with long property values (write permission). This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1.

Impact

An attacker with authenticated AMQP 1.0 consumer access and read+write permissions on stream queues can cause elevated CPU usage on the server by exploiting inefficient regex evaluation of LIKE filters. This can degrade performance by consuming CPU resources disproportionately per message delivered, especially under high message throughput and multiple parallel sessions. There is no indication of data compromise or denial of service beyond resource consumption.

Summary

RabbitMQ's pattern_to_regex function maps SQL-like patterns to regular expressions with overlapping lazy quantifiers, leading to inefficient regex complexity. The vulnerability allows an authenticated AMQP 1.0 consumer with read and write permissions on stream queues to cause increased CPU usage by submitting crafted LIKE filters combined with messages having long property values. The regex engine's default match limit caps each match to approximately 100-200 milliseconds, but this can be multiplied across many messages and sessions, resulting in substantial CPU amplification. The vulnerability is addressed in rabbitmq-server versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1.

CWE-1333Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a regular expression with a worst-case computational complexity that is inefficient and possibly exponential.
Architecture and Design
Use regular expressions that do not support backtracking, e.g. by removing nested quantifiers.
System Configuration
Set backtracking limits in the configuration of the regular expression implementation, such as PHP's pcre.backtrack_limit. Also consider limits on execution time for the process.
Implementation
Do not use regular expressions with untrusted input. If regular expressions must be used, avoid using backtracking in the expression.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (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 23 Sep 2026, 20:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1333

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats