VulnerabilityPublished 10 Aug 2026Updated 29 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-71576: Red Hat Multicluster Global Hub 1.4.9 · Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

Affects Red Hat Multicluster Global Hub 1.4.9Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.5 High.

Data as of 7 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.5High

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.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Aug 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.

cwe-345

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red HatMulticluster Global Hub 1.4.9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatMulticluster Global Hub 1.5.8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatMulticluster Global Hub 1.6.6	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatMulticluster Global Hub 1.7.3	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatMulticluster Global Hub 1.8.2	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Currently, there is no available mitigation or fix that meets Red Hat's criteria for ease of use, deployment, applicability, or stability. Users should monitor Red Hat's official advisory for updates. Customers with a Technical Account Manager (TAM) can consult directly for guidance. Until a fix or mitigation is provided, caution should be exercised in managing access to Kafka client certificates and the security of managed hubs.

Description

A flaw was found in multicluster-global-hub. The manager component improperly validates the source identity of incoming CloudEvents on Kafka status topics. A remote attacker, after compromising a managed hub and obtaining its Kafka client certificate, can manipulate the self-asserted source identity. This allows the attacker to falsify or delete critical data, such as compliance, inventory, and cluster health information, belonging to other hubs in the database.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker with low privileges (compromised managed hub and Kafka client certificate) to impersonate other hubs within the Multicluster Global Hub environment. This can lead to falsification or deletion of critical data such as compliance, inventory, and cluster health information, resulting in significant data integrity problems. There is no impact on confidentiality, but integrity is highly affected and availability impact is low. No known exploits in the wild have been reported.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Aug 2026, 17:11 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats