Red Hat Security Advisory: OpenShift Container Platform 4.22.20 bug fix and security update
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Mentioned vulnerabilities
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.5 Medium.
Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 07:15 UTC
- EPSS
- 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N- Attack Vector
- Local
- Attack Complexity
- High
- Attack Requirements
- Present
- Privileges Required
- High
- User Interaction
- None
- Vulnerable system confidentiality
- Low
- Vulnerable system integrity
- Low
- Vulnerable system availability
- None
- Subsequent system confidentiality
- High
- Subsequent system integrity
- High
- Subsequent system availability
- None
Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.
- Attack Vector: Local
- The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
- Attack Complexity: High
- The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
- 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: High
- The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
- User Interaction: None
- The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
- Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
- There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
- Vulnerable system integrity: Low
- Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
- Vulnerable system availability: None
- There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
- Subsequent system confidentiality: High
- There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
- Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent 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 11 Aug 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
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| Intel(R) Processors | Affected
| Fixed in– |
AI-suggested
Red Hat has released OpenShift Container Platform 4.22.20 containing fixes for these vulnerabilities. Users should update to this version to remediate the security issues. Since this is an official Red Hat advisory with a released update, applying the update is the recommended mitigation. No additional vendor advisories indicate that no action is required or that issues are already mitigated.
Description
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.22.20 includes multiple security fixes addressing critical vulnerabilities across various components such as the kernel, libpcap, bind, OpenSSH, libevent, libxml2, pcre2, and others. These fixes mitigate issues including privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, denial of service, information disclosure, and security bypasses. The update is rated critical by Red Hat Product Security.
Impact
The vulnerabilities fixed in this update have critical security implications including privilege escalation to kernel ring 0, arbitrary code execution in widely used libraries, denial of service conditions that could disrupt services, information disclosure risks, and security bypasses. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities could lead to unauthorized access, system compromise, or service outages in environments running affected versions of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform.
- CWE-266Incorrect Privilege Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
- 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-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-565Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product relies on the existence or values of cookies when performing security-critical operations, but it does not properly ensure that the setting is valid for the associated user.
Architecture and Design
Avoid using cookie data for a security-related decision.
Implementation
Perform thorough input validation (i.e.: server side validation) on the cookie data if you're going to use it for a security related decision.
Architecture and Design
Add integrity checks to detect tampering.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-617Reachable Assertion (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
Implementation
If the assertion statement is required (e.g., for security or reliability), change the invoking code to avoid the conditions that trigger the assertion.
Implementation
Consider changing the assertion to some other less "fatal" error. This might not be easy to implement, since other code may be needed to handle the error.
Implementation
Make sensitive open/close operations non-reachable from directly user-controlled data (e.g. open/close resources)
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-838Inappropriate Encoding for Output Context (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product uses or specifies an encoding when generating output to a downstream component, but the specified encoding is not the same as the encoding that is expected by the downstream component.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use context-aware encoding. That is, understand which encoding is being used by the downstream component, and ensure that this encoding is used. If an encoding can be specified, do so, instead of assuming that the default encoding is the same as the default being assumed by the downstream component.
Architecture and Design · Output Encoding
Where possible, use communications protocols or data formats that provide strict boundaries between control and data. If this is not feasible, ensure that the protocols or formats allow the communicating components to explicitly state which encoding/decoding method is being used.
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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- 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
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-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
- Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
- Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
- Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
- Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
- Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-358Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not implement or incorrectly implements one or more security-relevant checks as specified by the design of a standardized algorithm, protocol, or technique.
- CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests (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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
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-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-1285Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset 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-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-940Improper Verification of Source of a Communication Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product establishes a communication channel to handle an incoming request that has been initiated by an actor, but it does not properly verify that the request is coming from the expected origin.
Architecture and Design
Use a mechanism that can validate the identity of the source, such as a certificate, and validate the integrity of data to ensure that it cannot be modified in transit using an Adversary-in-the-Middle (AITM) attack.
- 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 (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-805Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the 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-192Integer Coercion Error (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
Integer coercion refers to a set of flaws pertaining to the type casting, extension, or truncation of primitive data types.
Requirements
A language which throws exceptions on ambiguous data casts might be chosen.
Architecture and Design
Design objects and program flow such that multiple or complex casts are unnecessary
Implementation
Ensure that any data type casting that you must use is entirely understood in order to reduce the plausibility of error in use.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-669Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1341Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-130Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-201Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-366Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-839Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-176Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-400Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-843Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-409Name 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-2026:89197
- Vendor Severity
- critical
- CVE Count
- 58
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2026-0799, CVE-2026-5260, CVE-2026-8924, CVE-2026-19666, CVE-2026-19667, CVE-2026-19953, CVE-2026-40467, CVE-2026-40468, CVE-2026-42011, CVE-2026-42012, CVE-2026-42013, CVE-2026-59995, CVE-2026-59999, CVE-2026-63382, CVE-2026-63383, CVE-2026-63384, CVE-2026-63385, CVE-2026-63387, CVE-2026-63388, CVE-2026-64564, CVE-2026-66046, CVE-2026-68108, CVE-2026-68123, CVE-2026-68257, CVE-2026-80274, CVE-2026-80792, CVE-2026-80887, CVE-2026-80921, CVE-2026-81003, CVE-2026-86138, CVE-2026-86140, CVE-2026-86142, CVE-2026-86143, CVE-2026-86144, CVE-2026-86145, CVE-2026-89161, CVE-2026-89480, CVE-2026-89481, CVE-2026-89663, CVE-2026-89669, CVE-2026-89690, CVE-2026-89811, CVE-2026-89894, CVE-2026-89972, CVE-2026-90036, CVE-2026-90227, CVE-2026-93207, CVE-2026-93228, CVE-2026-93288, CVE-2026-93817, CVE-2026-93990, CVE-2026-94640, CVE-2026-97417, CVE-2026-99999, CVE-2026-103111, CVE-2026-103262, CVE-2026-114406
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:89197 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/ (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2462960 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2467437 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2467441 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2467448 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2467450 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2496765 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2497927 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2497942 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2499655 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2499658 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2510890 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513361 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513372 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513451 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2514104 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517901 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2520654 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2520655 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5.3 security updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: libpcap security updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: libpcap security updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: libpcap security updateHighVulnerability
- CVE-2026-0799: The Tcpdump Group libpcap · Improper Validation of Array IndexHighVulnerability