CVE-2026-44487VulnerabilityPublished 1 Jul 2026Updated 7 Nov 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: General availability of the satellite/iop-advisor-frontend-rhel9 container image

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 14 Nov 2026, 20:44 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 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 14 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
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected Red Hat Red Hat Satellite Red Hat Satellite 6.19 amd64 registry.redhat.io/satellite/iop-advisor-frontend-rhel9@sha256:2f8965fd63211a92fe13a9863844b79fd8e597c93f405456887d3735751dd130_amd64	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Currently, there is no available fix or patch that meets Red Hat's criteria for ease of use, deployment, and stability. Users are advised to review their use of Axios with authenticated HTTP proxies and redirects carefully. Consider avoiding configurations that involve proxy-to-direct redirect flows or using alternative HTTP clients that do not exhibit this behavior until a fix is provided. Monitor Red Hat advisories for updates or patches. Customers with Red Hat Technical Account Managers (TAM) can seek direct guidance. No specific workaround is provided in the advisory.

Description

Red Hat Lightspeed in Satellite analyzes system health and configuration by applying predefined rules to a small set of local data, such as installed packages, running services, and configuration settings. When you install Red Hat Lightspeed in Satellite locally, you can generate Red Hat Lightspeed recommendations without sending system data to Red Hat services.

Impact

The vulnerability can lead to the unintended disclosure of sensitive proxy credentials when Axios follows certain redirect flows involving authenticated HTTP proxies. This exposure could allow an attacker who controls or observes the final redirected destination to obtain proxy credentials, potentially compromising proxy security and enabling unauthorized proxy usage or further attacks. There is no reported impact on integrity or availability. The issue affects confidentiality only.

Summary

The vulnerability (CVE-2026-44487) is an information disclosure flaw in Axios, a popular HTTP client for Node.js. When Axios is used with an authenticated HTTP proxy and follows redirects from an HTTP proxy to a non-proxied HTTPS destination, the Proxy-Authorization header intended only for the proxy may be forwarded to the final origin server. This can lead to the exposure of sensitive proxy credentials to unintended third parties. The issue is classified under CWE-201 (Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data) and related CWEs. Red Hat Satellite and its container image satellite/iop-advisor-frontend-rhel9 are affected. Red Hat has not provided a patch or fix for this vulnerability as of the advisory date. The vulnerability has a high severity rating based on Red Hat's assessment, although no CVSS score is provided. No known exploits in the wild have been reported.

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
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured SSL/TLS (opens in a new tab)
WiFi MAC Address Tracking (opens in a new tab)
WiFi SSID Tracking (opens in a new tab)
Cellular Broadcast Message Request (opens in a new tab)
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
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-915Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
Implementation
If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.2 (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 17 Aug 2026, 17:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-201, CWE-770, CWE-915

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats