VulnerabilityPublished 12 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-71367: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2 · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 14:19 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	4.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 12 Nov 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 12 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2ansible-automation-platform-27/controller-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2automation-controller	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

There is no complete mitigation other than applying the vendor update when it becomes available. Until then, reduce exposure by restricting user account creation and auditing organization memberships in multi-organization deployments. Consider restricting WebSocket upgrade requests to authenticated sessions with legitimate use cases via reverse proxies or load balancers. Managed service providers should assess network-level WebSocket filtering at the service mesh layer. Monitoring WebSocket subscription activity for unauthorized broadcast group subscriptions is also recommended.

Description

CVE-2026-71367 is an incorrect authorization vulnerability in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2's AWX WebSocket consumer. The flaw allows authenticated users in multi-organization deployments to subscribe to global broadcast groups without proper permission checks, exposing real-time job status metadata across organizations. This bypasses organization isolation enforced by the REST API. The leaked data includes job IDs, status transitions, timestamps, and infrastructure topology details, but not full job outputs or credentials. The vulnerability has limited impact in single-organization deployments and moderate impact in multi-organization or managed service environments.

Impact

The vulnerability leads to unauthorized disclosure of job metadata across organizational boundaries in multi-organization deployments. This includes job IDs, status transitions, timestamps, and infrastructure topology details such as instance group names. The impact is limited to confidentiality and does not affect integrity or availability. Single-organization deployments are not practically impacted because all users share job visibility. Managed service deployments face higher risk due to cross-tenant information disclosure. No job outputs, playbook content, or credentials are leaked.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Nov 2026, 14:19 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats