VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-10842: IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5, and 9.0 and IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty 17.0.0.3 through 26.0.0.7 Traditional and Liberty could

Affects websphere-application-serverSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-10842· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 07:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Jul 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 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.

ghsa-xhv7-44rm-j43c

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavencom.ibm.websphere/websphere-application-server`pkg:maven/com.ibm.websphere/websphere-application-server`Other threats	Affected =8.5 =9.0	Fixed in–
Mavencom.ibm.websphere/websphere-application-server-liberty`pkg:maven/com.ibm.websphere/websphere-application-server-liberty`Other threats	Affected >=17.0.0.3 <=26.0.0.7	Fixed in–

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

Description

IBM WebSphere Application Server versions 8.5, 9.0, and Liberty versions 17.0.0.3 through 26.0.0.7 have a vulnerability that could allow a remote attacker to bypass security constraints. This issue affects both Traditional and Liberty editions. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-289, indicating improper authentication. No specific patch or remediation information is provided in the available data.

Impact

A remote attacker can bypass security constraints, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive information (high confidentiality impact). There is no reported impact on integrity or availability. This could compromise the confidentiality of data protected by the affected WebSphere Application Server versions.

Summary

CVE-2026-10842 describes a security vulnerability in IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5, 9.0, and Liberty editions from 17.0.0.3 through 26.0.0.7. The vulnerability allows a remote attacker to bypass security constraints, potentially gaining unauthorized access. The CVSS 3.1 vector indicates the attack can be performed remotely with low complexity, no privileges, and no user interaction, resulting in high confidentiality impact but no integrity or availability impact. The vulnerability is related to improper authentication (CWE-289).

CWE-289Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
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)
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 31 Jul 2026, 00:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-289

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats