CVE-2026-50559VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jun 2026Updated 22 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat build of Quarkus 3.20.6.SP2 security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-39852

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-50559· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in Red Hat package updates : patch Red Hat soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 63% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.36.3, 3.33.2.1, 3.27.4.1 +1

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

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jun 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CISA SSVC: proof of concept public
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

CVE ID reserved
by GitHub, Inc.
4 Jun 202621:34 UTC, 15 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
19 Jun 202620:26 UTC, t = 0
CISA SSVC assessment
proof of concept public
22 Jun 202617:29 UTC, 3 days after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA SSVC, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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 quarkus to 3.36.3, 3.33.2.1, 3.27.4.1 or 3.20.6.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
quarkusioquarkus	Affected >=3.36.0 <3.36.3	Fixed in 3.36.3
quarkusioquarkus	Affected >=3.33.0 <3.33.2.1	Fixed in 3.33.2.1
quarkusioquarkus	Affected >=3.27.0 <3.27.4.1	Fixed in 3.27.4.1
quarkusioquarkus	Affected <3.20.6.2	Fixed in 3.20.6.2

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released official security updates addressing this vulnerability in Red Hat build of Quarkus versions 3.37.0, 3.36.3, 3.33.2.1, 3.33.3, 3.27.4.1, 3.27.5, and 3.20.6.2. Users should apply these updates to remediate the issue. Before applying the update, ensure all previously released relevant errata have been applied. Refer to the Red Hat advisory RHSA-2026:26194 and official Red Hat documentation for detailed update instructions.

Description

Quarkus is a Java framework for building cloud-native applications. Prior to versions 3.37.0, 3.36.3, 3.33.2.1, 3.33.3, 3.27.4.1, 3.27.5, and 3.20.6.2, Quarkus HTTP path-based authorization policies can be bypassed using encoded semicolons (%3B) to smuggle matrix parameters past the security layer, and using encoded slashes (%2F) or backslashes (%5C) to access protected static resources. This is a distinct issue from CVE-2026-39852, which addressed only literal semicolon stripping. Versions 3.37.0, 3.36.3, 3.33.2.1, 3.33.3, 3.27.4.1, 3.27.5, and 3.20.6.2 contain a patch.

Impact

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass HTTP path-based authorization controls, potentially granting unauthorized access to protected resources. The CVSS score of 7.5 reflects a high severity impact with network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, and high confidentiality impact but no integrity or availability impact.

CWE-551Incorrect Behavior Order: Authorization Before Parsing and Canonicalization (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
If a web server does not fully parse requested URLs before it examines them for authorization, it may be possible for an attacker to bypass authorization protection.
Architecture and Design
URL Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated and processed for authorization. Make sure that your application does not decode the same input twice.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-287Improper Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fake the Source of Data (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Session Hijacking (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Aug 2026, 12:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-551, CWE-287, CWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats