CVE-2026-108500VulnerabilityPublished 5 Nov 2026Updated 13 Nov 2026

activemq · Input Validation Vulnerability

Affects activemqSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-108500· Medium 6.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 6.4.0 : update activemq when convenient.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 22:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CISA-ADP	CVSS 3.1	6.5

Patch: Available – fixed in 6.4.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 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 13 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
Ubuntu 26.10activemq`pkg:deb/ubuntu/activemq?arch=source&distro=stonking`Other threats	Affected =5.17.6+dfsg-2 =5.17.6+dfsg-2ubuntu1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 26.04 LTSactivemq`pkg:deb/ubuntu/activemq?arch=source&distro=resolute`Other threats	Affected =5.17.6+dfsg-2	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSactivemq`pkg:deb/ubuntu/activemq?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected =5.17.2+dfsg-2 =5.17.6+dfsg-1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 22.04 LTSactivemq`pkg:deb/ubuntu/activemq?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/jammy`Other threats	Affected =5.16.1-1 =5.16.1-1ubuntu0.1~esm1 =5.16.1-1ubuntu0.1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 20.04 LTSactivemq`pkg:deb/ubuntu/activemq?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/focal`Other threats	Affected =5.15.10-1 =5.15.11-1 =5.15.11-1ubuntu0.1~esm1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 18.04 LTSactivemq`pkg:deb/ubuntu/activemq?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/bionic`Other threats	Affected 5.14.5-3 – 5.15.8-2~18.04.1~esm1 5 affected builds	Fixed in–

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

Description

Input validation vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ configured to use the LDAPAuthorizationMapPlugin allows an authenticated attacker to create or address a destination with a crafted name containing LDAP DN special characters (such as comma, plus, equals, backslash) can manipulate the LDAP search base used for ACL lookups. This issue affects Apache ActiveMQ: from 6.3.0 before 6.3.3, from 5.19.0 before 5.19.12. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 6.4.0, 6.3.3 or 5.19.12, which fixes the issue.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…