CVE-2026-43114VulnerabilityPublished 27 Oct 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.74 bug fix and security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-43114· Critical 9.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical · fixed in Red Hat package updates : patch Red Hat as a priority.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 07:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.4Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in fa4f1f52528c73989d820f32bfca06bec5afeece, f8c39983fc9c1a978c82e6f2df7bfba8a8561587, d3c0037ffe1273fa1961e779ff6906234d6cf53c +5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 May 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 29 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.
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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 7400b063969bdca4a06cd97f1294d765c8eecbe1, < fa4f1f52528c73989d820f32bfca06bec5afeece	Fixed in fa4f1f52528c73989d820f32bfca06bec5afeece
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 7400b063969bdca4a06cd97f1294d765c8eecbe1, < f8c39983fc9c1a978c82e6f2df7bfba8a8561587	Fixed in f8c39983fc9c1a978c82e6f2df7bfba8a8561587
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 7400b063969bdca4a06cd97f1294d765c8eecbe1, < d3c0037ffe1273fa1961e779ff6906234d6cf53c	Fixed in d3c0037ffe1273fa1961e779ff6906234d6cf53c
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 7400b063969bdca4a06cd97f1294d765c8eecbe1, < c7babe2f28b507e17f28e9f753b7caec72d4857f	Fixed in c7babe2f28b507e17f28e9f753b7caec72d4857f
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 7400b063969bdca4a06cd97f1294d765c8eecbe1, < 07de44424bb7f17ef9357e8535df96d9e97c40cb	Fixed in 07de44424bb7f17ef9357e8535df96d9e97c40cb
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 7400b063969bdca4a06cd97f1294d765c8eecbe1, < 3d53f9aafd469ae1ea27051e00f5b96ca1b55d52	Fixed in 3d53f9aafd469ae1ea27051e00f5b96ca1b55d52

AI-suggested

Users of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16 should upgrade to version 4.16.74 as soon as the updated packages and container images are available in their release channel. Upgrades can be performed using the OpenShift CLI (oc) or the web console. Detailed upgrade instructions are provided in the official Red Hat documentation. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the update.

Description

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.74 includes multiple security fixes addressing kernel vulnerabilities such as use-after-free, out-of-bounds access, and improper certificate trust. These fixes resolve issues in netfilter, SCTP, PPPoE, IPv6, RDMA, IPv4 checksum validation, and distrust of certain intermediate CA certificates. Users of OpenShift Container Platform 4.16 are advised to upgrade to this release to mitigate these critical security issues.

Impact

The vulnerabilities fixed in this update could lead to kernel-level memory corruption issues such as use-after-free and out-of-bounds access, potentially allowing attackers to cause system instability or escalate privileges. The distrust of certain intermediate CA certificates addresses security concerns related to certificate validation and trust. The overall security impact is rated as important by Red Hat, with the advisory labeling the update as critical due to the nature of kernel vulnerabilities.

Summary

This advisory covers Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.74, which provides security updates for several kernel components and ca-certificates. The fixed vulnerabilities include CVE-2026-43114 (netfilter: nft_set_pipapo_avx2), CVE-2026-64564 (SCTP transport freeing), CVE-2026-68121 (PPPoE header pointer reload), CVE-2026-80792 (IPv6 use-after-free), CVE-2026-80863 and CVE-2026-80864 (RDMA/rxe out-of-bounds and use-after-free), CVE-2026-99999 (IPv4 checksum validation), and CVE-2026-114406 (distrust of eMudhra intermediate CA certificates). These vulnerabilities are addressed in the updated container images and RPM packages for OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.74. The advisory recommends upgrading clusters using the OpenShift CLI or web console. No public exploit code or in-the-wild exploitation is reported.

CWE-480Use of Incorrect Operator (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Low
The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
CWE-825Expired Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.
Architecture and Design
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation
When freeing pointers, be sure to set them to NULL once they are freed. However, the utilization of multiple or complex data structures may lower the usefulness of this strategy.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
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
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
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
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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 29 Oct 2026, 07:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-480, CWE-825, CWE-787 +1

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats