Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AI Base Images 3.0.7 (CUDA)
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.
Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 02:31 UTC
Thin evidence
One scorer or none| CNA (PSF) | CVSS 4.0 | 5.9 |
|---|
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- Low
- Attack Requirements
- Present
- Privileges Required
- None
- User Interaction
- Active
- Vulnerable system confidentiality
- None
- Vulnerable system integrity
- High
- Vulnerable system availability
- None
- Subsequent system confidentiality
- None
- Subsequent system integrity
- None
- Subsequent system availability
- None
Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.
- Attack Vector: Network
- The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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
- The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
- 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: None
- The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
- User Interaction: Active
- Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a targeted user to perform specific, conscious interactions with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload, or the user’s interactions would actively subvert protection mechanisms which would lead to exploitation of the vulnerability.
- Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
- There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
- Vulnerable 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
- Vulnerable system availability: None
- There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
- Subsequent system confidentiality: None
- There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
- Subsequent system integrity: None
- There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable 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 25 Sep 2025
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.
Description
Red Hat® AI Base Images
- CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (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-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
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-325Missing Cryptographic Step (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1287Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
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-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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-416Use After Free (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #7
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
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-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input (Classic Buffer Overflow) (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-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-824Access of Uninitialized Pointer (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product accesses or uses a pointer that has not been initialized.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-130Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data.
Implementation
When processing structured incoming data containing a size field followed by raw data, ensure that you identify and resolve any inconsistencies between the size field and the actual size of the data.
Implementation
Do not let the user control the size of the buffer.
Implementation
Validate that the length of the user-supplied data is consistent with the buffer size.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1204Generation of Weak Initialization Vector (IV) (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product uses a cryptographic primitive that uses an Initialization Vector (IV), but the product does not generate IVs that are sufficiently unpredictable or unique according to the expected cryptographic requirements for that primitive.
Implementation
Different cipher modes have different requirements for their IVs. When choosing and implementing a mode, it is important to understand those requirements in order to keep security guarantees intact.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
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-763Release of Invalid Pointer or Reference (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls the wrong release function or calls the appropriate release function incorrectly.
Implementation
Only call matching memory management functions. Do not mix and match routines. For example, when you allocate a buffer with malloc(), dispose of the original pointer with free().
Implementation
When programming in C++, consider using smart pointers provided by the boost library to help correctly and consistently manage memory.
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.
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-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-669Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product does not properly transfer a resource/behavior to another sphere, or improperly imports a resource/behavior from another sphere, in a manner that provides unintended control over that resource.
- 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-1341Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product attempts to close or release a resource or handle more than once, without any successful open between the close operations.
Implementation
Change the code's logic so that the resource is only closed once. This might require simplifying or refactoring. This fix can be simple to do in small code blocks, but more difficult when multiple closes are buried within complex conditionals.
Implementation · Refactoring
It can be effective to implement a flag that is (1) set when the resource is opened, (2) cleared when it is closed, and (3) checked before closing. This approach can be useful when there are disparate cases in which closes must be performed.
Implementation · Refactoring
When closing a resource, set the resource's associated variable to NULL or equivalent value for the given language. Some APIs will ignore this null value without causing errors.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-295Name 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-2026:91236
- Vendor Severity
- critical
- CVE Count
- 28
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2025-13327, CVE-2025-69418, CVE-2026-1703, CVE-2026-3219, CVE-2026-6357, CVE-2026-6653, CVE-2026-8643, CVE-2026-11979, CVE-2026-13346, CVE-2026-28390, CVE-2026-31790, CVE-2026-34182, CVE-2026-34183, CVE-2026-45445, CVE-2026-45447, CVE-2026-74860, CVE-2026-86138, CVE-2026-86140, CVE-2026-86142, CVE-2026-86143, CVE-2026-86144, CVE-2026-86145, CVE-2026-89161, CVE-2026-103111, CVE-2026-114109, CVE-2026-114110, CVE-2026-114406
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:91236 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-13327 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-69418 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-8869 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-103111 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-114109 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-114110 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-114406 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11979 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-13346 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-1703 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-28390 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-31790 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-3219 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34182 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34183 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45445 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45447 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-6357 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-6653 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AI Base Images 3.5.5 (ROCm 7.14)CriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AI Base Images 3.4.6 (Spyre)CriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AI Base Images 3.4.6 (ROCm 6.4)CriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AI Base Images 3.0.7 (TPU)CriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AI Base Images 3.4.6 (CPU)CriticalVulnerability