CVE-2026-4800VulnerabilityPublished 29 Apr 2026Updated 23 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: pcs security update

Affects Red Hat pcsSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-31958

Not known to be exploited : upgrade Red Hat pcs to 8.8.11 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 2.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 86% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 8.8.11

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, 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 Red Hat pcs to 8.8.11.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=8.8 <8.8.11 Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability E4S (v.8.8) Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability TUS (v.8.8) src	Fixed in 8.8.11

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated pcs packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 that address these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the provided updates (pcs-0.10.15-4.el8_8.11) from the Red Hat repositories as detailed in the advisory RHSA-2026:11495. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official update.

Description

The pcs packages provide a command-line configuration system for the Pacemaker and Corosync utilities. Security Fix(es): * tornado-python: Tornado: Denial of Service via large multipart bodies (CVE-2026-31958) * lodash: lodash: Arbitrary code execution via untrusted input in template imports (CVE-2026-4800) For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Impact

Successful exploitation of CVE-2026-31958 could cause denial of service conditions in applications using tornado-python by processing large multipart bodies. CVE-2026-4800 could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code via untrusted input in lodash template imports. These vulnerabilities affect systems running the affected versions of pcs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8, potentially impacting system availability and security.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
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
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Aug 2026, 20:22 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-94, CWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats