CVE-2025-31651VulnerabilityPublished 16 Feb 2026Updated 27 Jun 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: pki-deps:10.6 security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-55752

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 4.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 90% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Feb 2026
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 2026-10-25.

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 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

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated packages for the pki-deps:10.6 module that address these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the security update RHSA-2026:2726 promptly following Red Hat's official guidance at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. Since this is a traditional software update (not a cloud service), remediation requires manual or automated patch deployment by system administrators. No indication is given that no action is required or that the issue is already mitigated without patching.

Description

This security advisory addresses vulnerabilities in the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Core packages required by the Red Hat Certificate System, specifically involving Apache Tomcat components. Two vulnerabilities are fixed: CVE-2025-31651, which allows bypass of rules in the Tomcat Rewrite Valve, and CVE-2025-55752, which involves directory traversal via rewrite with possible remote code execution. The update applies to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 variants including Advanced Mission Critical Update Support, Update Services for SAP Solutions, and Telecommunications Update Service. The advisory rates the security impact as Important. No CVSS scores are provided in the advisory. The vendor has released updated packages to address these issues.

Impact

Successful exploitation of CVE-2025-31651 could allow bypassing of rewrite rules in Apache Tomcat, potentially enabling unauthorized access or manipulation of web traffic. CVE-2025-55752 could allow directory traversal attacks via rewrite rules, with the possibility of remote code execution, posing a significant risk to system integrity and confidentiality. These vulnerabilities affect core PKI components, which are critical for certificate management and security services in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 environments.

CWE-150Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as escape, meta, or control character sequences when they are sent to a downstream component.
Developers should anticipate that escape, meta and control characters/sequences will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
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.
Implementation · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
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)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Email Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Log Injection-Tampering-Forging (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-23Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that 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.
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).
Operation · Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Jun 2026, 23:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-150, CWE-23

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats