VulnerabilityPublished 11 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-66073: rabbitmq-server security update

Affects rabbitmq-serverSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-66073· Medium 6.0

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.0 Medium : upgrade to 3.9.23-11.oe2403sp4 when convenient.

Data as of 11 Nov 2026, 13:20 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.0Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.9.23-11.oe2403sp4

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Sep 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 11 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

Upgrade rabbitmq-server to 3.9.23-11.oe2403sp4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
openEuler 24.03-LTS-SP4rabbitmq-server`pkg:rpm/openEuler/rabbitmq-server&distro=openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4`Other threats	Affected <3.9.23-11.oe2403sp4	Fixed in 3.9.23-11.oe2403sp4

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

Description

RabbitMQ is an implementation of AMQP, the emerging standard for high performance enterprise messaging. The RabbitMQ server is a robust and scalable implementation of an AMQP broker. Security Fix(es): RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. From 3.13.0 until 3.13.15 and 4.0.20 and 4.1.11 and 4.2.6, Atom table exhaustion via management API node field. pUT /api/queues/:vhost/:name (and the exchanges and bindings endpoints) accepts a node JSON field. The value goes through rabbitnodes:make → listtoatom with no cluster membership check first. Each unique value permanently leaks one atom. A March 2026 refactoring (ea61ce2563) introduced safe helpers in rabbitmgmtnodes.erl (parsenodename, safeatom, and requirenodename, using binarytoexistingatom) and fixed several callers (QQ replica ops, wmauthattempts, wmnodememoryets, getsortreverse, and rabbitfederationmgmt), but getnode/1 in rabbitmgmtutil.erl:880-885, the primary vector used by directrequest/6, was not Roughly 900K requests crash the VM via systemlimit, and all tenants lose Any user with the management tag and one vhost, the lowest privilege This issue is fixed in versions 3.13.15 and 4.0.20 and 4.1.11 and 4.2.6.(CVE-2026-66073) RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, 4.3.0, When a binding is created on an x-jms-topic exchange, add_binding/3 reads the rjms_erlang_selector argument and passes it through erl_scan:string/1 then erl_parse:parse_term/1. erl_scan:string/1 interns every atom literal it tokenizes. validate_binding/2 is a no-op (-> ok.), there is no length cap, and the surrounding try/catch cannot reclaim atoms. The Java JMS client compiles selectors client-side, but the server does not enforce this , a raw AMQP client can send arbitrary selector strings. An authenticated low-privilege AMQP user confined to one vhost can crash the entire broker node (cross-tenant DoS) in <100 bind calls. Preconditions include rabbitmq_jms_topic_exchange plugin enabled (bundled; required for any JMS deployment) Authenticated AMQP user with read on an x-jms-topic exchange + write on a queue (or configure to declare both). This issue is fixed in versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, 4.3.0.(CVE-2026-67220) RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. From 3.13.0 until 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, and 4.2.6, the Web STOMP WebSocket handler enforced neither max_frame_size nor login_timeout before authentication, allowing an unauthenticated client to keep a connection alive with a slow stream of small frames and accumulate unbounded pre-authentication state. The rabbitmq_web_stomp plugin must be enabled, and no authentication is required to reach the vulnerable path. This issue is fixed in versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, and 4.2.6.(CVE-2026-67230) RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, and 4.3.1, The shovel management resource's is_authorized/2 delegates to rabbit_mgmt_util:is_authorized_monitor/2, which accepts the monitoring tag. But allowed_methods includes DELETE, and delete_resource/2 deletes / restarts shovel runtime parameters with no additional role check. A monitoring user , intended to have read-only visibility , can therefore delete or restart any shovel in any vhost they can see. A read-only monitoring user can delete or restart any dynamic shovel , a state-changing operation that the equivalent /api/parameters endpoint correctly restricts to policymaker. Preconditions include rabbitmq_shovel + rabbitmq_shovel_management plugins enabled Attacker has credentials with the monitoring tag. This issue is fixed in versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, and 4.3.1.(CVE-2026-67233) RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. From 4.2.0 until 4.2.9 and 4.3.3, the Shovel parameter parser converted attacker-controlled runtime parameter values into non-garbage-collected Erlang atoms before bounding them or checking a fixed allowlist. Exploitation requires network access to the Management HTTP API, valid credentials with both the management and policymaker tags, permission to set Shovel runtime parameters on a vhost, and the rabbitmq_shovel and rabbitmq_shovel_management plugins to be enabled. The attacker can exhaust the node-wide atom table and deny service, and malicious parameters are stored durably and reparsed when workers start, so atom pressure can recur after restart without a live attacker connection. This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.9 and 4.3.3.(CVE-2026-67415) RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to 4.3.5, an authenticated user who can bind a queue to a topic exchange and publish to it can use consecutive # segments in a binding key to make both topic matchers revisit the same trie-node and routing-key-suffix states without memoization. The matcher materializes duplicate destinations before deduplication, causing combinatorial CPU work and memory pressure that can disrupt routing for all tenants. This v

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…