Red Hat Security Advisory: cert-manager Operator for Red Hat OpenShift 1.18.2
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High →: upgrade Red Hat libxml2 to 2.12.7 or 2.11.8 soon.
Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC
- EPSS
- 1.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 78% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
- Patch
- Available – fixed in 2.12.7, 2.11.8
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 13 May 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
- Weaponised
- Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 gnome/libxml2 to 2.12.7 or 2.11.8.
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
GitHubgnome/libxml2pkg:github/gnome/libxml2Other threats | Affected
| Fixed in
|
Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.
AI-suggested
Users should ensure that all previously released errata relevant to their system are applied before upgrading. If the cert-manager Operator's approval policy is set to 'Automatic' (the default), the upgrade to a fixed version will occur automatically with no user action required. If the approval policy is set to 'Manual', users must manually approve the upgrade. Refer to the official Red Hat documentation at https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/latest/security/cert_manager_operator/index.html for detailed upgrade instructions.
Description
The cert-manager Operator for Red Hat OpenShift introduces certificate authorities and certificates as first-class resource types in the Kubernetes API, enabling certificates-as-a-service within Kubernetes clusters. A security advisory has been issued for version 1.18.2 of this operator. The advisory highlights a high-severity vulnerability identified as CVE-2024-34459. The operator can be upgraded automatically if the installation uses the default automatic approval policy, or manually if set otherwise.
Impact
The vulnerability is rated as high severity, indicating a significant security risk within the cert-manager Operator for Red Hat OpenShift 1.18.2. The operator's role in managing certificates means exploitation could impact certificate management and security within Kubernetes clusters. However, no known exploits in the wild are reported at this time.
Summary
The cert-manager Operator for Red Hat OpenShift extends Kubernetes by managing certificate authorities and certificates as native Kubernetes resources. A high-severity vulnerability (CVE-2024-34459) affects version 1.18.2 of this operator. The Red Hat advisory recommends upgrading the operator to mitigate the issue. The upgrade process depends on the installation's approval policy: automatic upgrades occur by default, while manual approval is required if the policy was changed. No specific technical details about the vulnerability's nature or exploitation are provided in the advisory.
- CWE-126Buffer Over-read (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations after the targeted buffer.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
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.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-233Improper Handling of Parameters (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly handle when the expected number of parameters, fields, or arguments is not provided in input, or if those parameters are undefined.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-190Integer Overflow or Wraparound (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
Requirements
Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-407Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Low
An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-908Use of Uninitialized Resource (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.
Implementation
Explicitly initialize the resource before use. If this is performed through an API function or standard procedure, follow all required steps.
Implementation
Pay close attention to complex conditionals that affect initialization, since some branches might not perform the initialization.
Implementation
Avoid race conditions (CWE-362) during initialization routines.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1284Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
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.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-325Missing Cryptographic Step (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-131Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.
Implementation
When allocating a buffer for the purpose of transforming, converting, or encoding an input, allocate enough memory to handle the largest possible encoding. For example, in a routine that converts "&" characters to "&" for HTML entity encoding, the output buffer needs to be at least 5 times as large as the input…
Implementation
Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles…
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-843Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion') (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type.
- CWE-303Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-824Access of Uninitialized Pointer (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product accesses or uses a pointer that has not been initialized.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-201Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.
Requirements
Specify which data in the software should be regarded as sensitive. Consider which types of users should have access to which types of data.
Implementation
Ensure that any possibly sensitive data specified in the requirements is verified with designers to ensure that it is either a calculated risk or mitigated elsewhere.
System Configuration
Setup default error messages so that unexpected errors do not disclose sensitive information.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-179Incorrect Behavior Order: Early Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product validates input before applying protection mechanisms that modify the input, which could allow an attacker to bypass the validation via dangerous inputs that only arise after the modification.
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-178Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-617Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-835Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1286Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-838Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-367Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-208Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-416Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-347Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-191Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-674Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-415Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-122Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1287Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-79Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-606Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1050Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-764Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-551Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1341Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-776Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-130Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-59Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-475Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-170Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-825Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-193Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1046Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-205Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-354Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1204Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-681Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-22Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-444Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- GCVE source
- db.gcve.eu
- Csaf Category
- csaf_security_advisory
- Csaf Version
- 2.0
- Publisher
- Red Hat Product Security
- Advisory ID
- RHSA-2026:82347
- Vendor Severity
- high
- CVE Count
- 121
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2025-5278, CVE-2025-6170, CVE-2025-9086, CVE-2025-9820, CVE-2025-11187, CVE-2025-13151, CVE-2025-14087, CVE-2025-14104, CVE-2025-14512, CVE-2025-14831, CVE-2025-15281, CVE-2025-15467, CVE-2025-15468, CVE-2025-15469, CVE-2025-61726, CVE-2025-61728, CVE-2025-61730, CVE-2025-66199, CVE-2025-68121, CVE-2025-68160, CVE-2025-69418, CVE-2025-69419, CVE-2025-69420, CVE-2025-69421, CVE-2026-0861, CVE-2026-0915, CVE-2026-1965, CVE-2026-2100, CVE-2026-2673, CVE-2026-3783, CVE-2026-3832, CVE-2026-3833, CVE-2026-4046, CVE-2026-4111, CVE-2026-4424, CVE-2026-4437, CVE-2026-4438, CVE-2026-4878, CVE-2026-5121, CVE-2026-5260, CVE-2026-5419, CVE-2026-5435, CVE-2026-5450, CVE-2026-5928, CVE-2026-6238, CVE-2026-6653, CVE-2026-7383, CVE-2026-8286, CVE-2026-9076, CVE-2026-9547, CVE-2026-11822, CVE-2026-11824, CVE-2026-11979, CVE-2026-13757, CVE-2026-14164, CVE-2026-15588, CVE-2026-16118, CVE-2026-22795, CVE-2026-22796, CVE-2026-25679, CVE-2026-25681, CVE-2026-27135, CVE-2026-27145, CVE-2026-28390, CVE-2026-29111, CVE-2026-31790, CVE-2026-32280, CVE-2026-32281, CVE-2026-32283, CVE-2026-33186, CVE-2026-33811, CVE-2026-33814, CVE-2026-33818, CVE-2026-33845, CVE-2026-33846, CVE-2026-34180, CVE-2026-34181, CVE-2026-34182, CVE-2026-34183, CVE-2026-34986, CVE-2026-39820, CVE-2026-39822, CVE-2026-40355, CVE-2026-40356, CVE-2026-41989, CVE-2026-42009, CVE-2026-42010, CVE-2026-42011, CVE-2026-42012, CVE-2026-42013, CVE-2026-42014, CVE-2026-42015, CVE-2026-42499, CVE-2026-42504, CVE-2026-42764, CVE-2026-42766, CVE-2026-42767, CVE-2026-42768, CVE-2026-42769, CVE-2026-42770, CVE-2026-45445, CVE-2026-45446, CVE-2026-45447, CVE-2026-46597, CVE-2026-48864, CVE-2026-54369, CVE-2026-54370, CVE-2026-54371, CVE-2026-56858, CVE-2026-56859, CVE-2026-56860, CVE-2026-56862, CVE-2026-58010, CVE-2026-58011, CVE-2026-58012, CVE-2026-58013, CVE-2026-58014, CVE-2026-58015, CVE-2026-58016, CVE-2026-58055
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:82347 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-34459 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-11187 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-13151 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14087 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14104 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14512 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14831 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-15281 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-15467 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-15468 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-15469 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-5278 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-6170 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-61726 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-61728 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-61730 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-66199 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-68121 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-68160 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: RHOAI 2.25.12 - Red Hat OpenShift AICriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift API for Data ProtectionHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5.3 security updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 Container Release UpdateCriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift API for Data ProtectionHighVulnerability