CVE-2025-58056VulnerabilityPublished 23 Feb 2026Updated 3 Nov 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: AMQ Clients 2026.Q1

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 3 Nov 2026, 17:46 UTC

Severity

Medium

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Feb 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 3 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

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released an update for AMQ Clients 2026.Q1 that addresses this vulnerability. Users should apply this update after ensuring all previously released relevant errata have been applied. Detailed instructions for applying the update are available in the Red Hat advisory. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official update.

Description

A vulnerability identified as CVE-2025-58056 affects the netty-codec-http component used by Red Hat AMQ Clients. The flaw involves incorrect parsing of chunk extensions, leading to HTTP request smuggling. Red Hat has released an update for AMQ Clients 2026.Q1 that addresses this issue along with other bug fixes and enhancements.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker to perform HTTP request smuggling by exploiting incorrect parsing of chunk extensions in netty-codec-http. This can potentially lead to bypassing security controls, request/response desynchronization, or other HTTP-level attacks. The impact is rated as moderate by Red Hat, indicating a significant but not critical risk. There are no reports of active exploitation in the wild at this time.

Summary

Red Hat AMQ Clients, which facilitate messaging to and from AMQ Broker 7, include a vulnerable version of netty-codec-http that improperly parses HTTP chunk extensions. This parsing flaw enables HTTP request smuggling attacks, classified under CWE-444. The vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2025-58056 and has been rated with moderate severity by Red Hat Product Security. The advisory references an update (AMQ Clients 2026.Q1) that fixes this vulnerability. No CVSS score is provided in the advisory, and no known exploits in the wild have been reported. The update is applicable to Red Hat JBoss AMQ Clients 3 for RHEL 8 and 9 on x86_64 architectures.

CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests (HTTP Request Smuggling) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
Implementation
Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache.
Implementation
Use only SSL communication.
Implementation
Terminate the client session after each request.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Response Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Request Smuggling (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2026, 17:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-444

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats