CVE-2025-14813VulnerabilityPublished 10 Sep 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AMQ Broker 7.14.1 release and security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-14813· Critical 9.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical · fixed in Red Hat package updates : patch Red Hat bcprov as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.3Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.84, 1.81.1, 1.80.2

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N/RE:M/U:Red

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: High
Subsequent system integrity: High
Subsequent system availability: None

Supplemental metrics

Vulnerability Response Effort: Moderate
Provider Urgency: Red

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: 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: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable 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.
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: 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.
Vulnerability Response Effort: Moderate: The actions required to respond to a vulnerability require some effort on behalf of the consumer and could cause minimal service impact to implement. Examples include: simple remote update, disabling of a subsystem, or a low-touch software upgrade such as a driver update.
Provider Urgency: Red: Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having the highest urgency.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Apr 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 BC-JAVA and bcprov and org.bouncycastle/bcprov-jdk15on to 1.84, 1.81.1 or 1.80.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.BC-JAVA	Affected >=1.82 <1.84	Fixed in 1.84
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.BC-JAVA	Affected >=1.81 <1.81.1	Fixed in 1.81.1
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.BC-JAVA	Affected >=1.59 <1.80.2	Fixed in 1.80.2
GitHubbcprov`pkg:github/bcprov`Other threats	Affected >=1.59 <1.80.2 >=1.81 <1.81.1 >=1.82 <1.84	Fixed in 1.80.2 1.81.1 1.84
Mavenorg.bouncycastle/bcprov-jdk15on`pkg:maven/org.bouncycastle/bcprov-jdk15on`Other threats	Affected <1.80.2 >=1.81 <1.81.1 >=1.82 <1.84 =1.81 =1.82	Fixed in 1.80.2 1.81.1 1.84

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

AMQ Broker is a high-performance messaging implementation based on ActiveMQ Artemis. It uses an asynchronous journal for fast message persistence, and supports multiple languages, protocols, and platforms. This release of Red Hat AMQ Broker 7.14.1 includes security and bug fixes, and enhancements. For further information, refer to the release notes linked to in the References section. Security Fix(es): * (CVE-2025-14813) bcprov-jdk18on: GOSTCTR implementation unable to process more than 255 blocks correctly * (CVE-2026-0636) bcprov-jdk18on: LDAP injection vulnerability in LDAPStoreHelper.java * (CVE-2026-10050) jetty-security: Eclipse Jetty: Authentication bypass via Digest authentication encoding collision * (CVE-2026-12143) form-data: form-data: Form field override via CRLF injection * (CVE-2026-12151) undici: undici: Denial of Service due to unbounded memory growth via WebSocket frames * (CVE-2026-13149) brace-expansion: Brace-expansion: Denial of Service due to exponential-time complexity * (CVE-2026-13676) fast-uri: fast-uri: Security policy bypass due to improper Unicode hostname canonicalization * (CVE-2026-40983) micrometer-core: Micrometer: Denial of Service via specially crafted gRPC requests * (CVE-2026-40984) micrometer-core: Micrometer: Denial of Service via specially crafted HTTP requests * (CVE-2026-42198) postgresql: pgjdbc: Client-side Denial of Service via malicious SCRAM-SHA-256 authentication * (CVE-2026-42264) axios: Axios: Prototype pollution allows information disclosure and request manipulation * (CVE-2026-42338) ip-address: ip-address: Cross-site scripting via improper HTML escaping of untrusted input * (CVE-2026-42578) netty-handler-proxy: Netty: HTTP Header Injection via HttpProxyHandler Disabled Validation * (CVE-2026-42581) netty-codec-http: Netty: HTTP Request Smuggling due to improper handling of conflicting HTTP/1.0 headers * (CVE-2026-42583) netty-codec: Netty: Denial of Service via excessive memory allocation in LZ4FrameDecoder * (CVE-2026-42584) netty-codec-http: Netty: Incorrect HTTP response parsing leads to data confusion * (CVE-2026-42587) netty-codec-http2: Netty: Denial of Service via unbounded memory allocation in HTTP content decompression * (CVE-2026-42587) netty-codec-http: Netty: Denial of Service via unbounded memory allocation in HTTP content decompression * (CVE-2026-42588) activemq-broker: Apache ActiveMQ: Arbitrary code execution via improper input validation in Jolokia JMX-HTTP bridge * (CVE-2026-44248) netty-codec-mqtt: Netty: Denial of Service due to excessive resource consumption from crafted MQTT 5 header * (CVE-2026-44249) netty-handler: netty-handler: IPv6 subnet rule bypass due to incorrect masking operation * (CVE-2026-44486) axios: Axios: Information disclosure of proxy credentials via HTTP redirects * (CVE-2026-44487) axios: Axios: Information disclosure of proxy credentials via redirect flows * (CVE-2026-44488) axios: Axios: Denial of Service due to unenforced request and response size limits * (CVE-2026-44492) axios: Axios: Proxy bypass via IPv4-mapped IPv6 address non-normalization * (CVE-2026-44494) axios: Axios: Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack via Prototype Pollution * (CVE-2026-44496) axios: Axios: Client-side Denial of Service via unescaped regex metacharacters in XSRF cookie name * (CVE-2026-44893) netty-codec-haproxy: Netty-codec-haproxy: Denial of Service via malformed HAProxy message * (CVE-2026-45205) commons-configuration2: Apache Commons Configuration: Denial of Service via uncontrolled recursion with crafted YAML input * (CVE-2026-45416) netty-handler: Netty: Denial of Service due to eager buffer allocation in TLS handshake * (CVE-2026-45736) ws: ws: Uninitialized memory disclosure via `websocket.close()` with `TypedArray` * (CVE-2026-48043) netty-codec-http2: netty-codec-http2: Denial of Service due to resource leak * (CVE-2026-48059) netty-codec-haproxy: Netty HAProxy PROXY protocol v2 codec: Denial of Service via memory leak from crafted PROXY protocol headers * (CVE-2026-48779) ws: ws: Denial of Service via memory exhaustion from small WebSocket fragments * (CVE-2026-49362) artemis-server: artemis core protocol permits unauthed queue creation * (CVE-2026-49364) artemis-server: artemis cluster password leak via jgroups spoof * (CVE-2026-49432) artemis-stomp-protocol: Apache ActiveMQ: Denial of Service via improper input validation in STOMP connector * (CVE-2026-49978) dompurify: DOMPurify: Cross-site scripting vulnerability allows code execution * (CVE-2026-50010) netty-handler: Netty: Improper trust manager handling leads to hostname verification bypass * (CVE-2026-50734) activemq-client: Apache ActiveMQ: Denial of Service via crafted WireFormatInfo frame * (CVE-2026-53916) artemis-stomp-protocol: Apache ActiveMQ, Apache ActiveMQ All, Apache ActiveMQ Stomp: Unbounded header buffer in STOMP NIO codec * (CVE-2026-54512) jackson-databind: jackson-databind: Arbitrary code execution via PolymorphicTypeValidator bypass * (CVE-2026

CWE-327Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-90Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.
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
LDAP Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (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).
CWE-346Origin Validation Error (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
DNS Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
Exploit Script-Based APIs (opens in a new tab)
Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-303Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Reflection Attack in Authentication Protocol (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-201Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.
Requirements
Specify which data in the software should be regarded as sensitive. Consider which types of users should have access to which types of data.
Implementation
Ensure that any possibly sensitive data specified in the requirements is verified with designers to ensure that it is either a calculated risk or mitigated elsewhere.
System Configuration
Setup default error messages so that unexpected errors do not disclose sensitive information.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured SSL/TLS (opens in a new tab)
WiFi MAC Address Tracking (opens in a new tab)
WiFi SSID Tracking (opens in a new tab)
Cellular Broadcast Message Request (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-93Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
Implementation
Avoid using CRLF as a special sequence.
Implementation
Appropriately filter or quote CRLF sequences in user-controlled input.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (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).
CWE-1333Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a regular expression with a worst-case computational complexity that is inefficient and possibly exponential.
Architecture and Design
Use regular expressions that do not support backtracking, e.g. by removing nested quantifiers.
System Configuration
Set backtracking limits in the configuration of the regular expression implementation, such as PHP's pcre.backtrack_limit. Also consider limits on execution time for the process.
Implementation
Do not use regular expressions with untrusted input. If regular expressions must be used, avoid using backtracking in the expression.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-551Incorrect Behavior Order: Authorization Before Parsing and Canonicalization (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
If a web server does not fully parse requested URLs before it examines them for authorization, it may be possible for an attacker to bypass authorization protection.
Architecture and Design
URL Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated and processed for authorization. Make sure that your application does not decode the same input twice.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-168Improper Handling of Inconsistent Special Elements (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly handle input in which an inconsistency exists between two or more special characters or reserved words.
Developers should anticipate that inconsistent special elements will be injected/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 · 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
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)
V5.2.7 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-241Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular element is not the expected type, e.g. it expects a digit (0-9) but is provided with a letter (A-Z).
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).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Passing Local Filenames to Functions That Expect a URL (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-915Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
Implementation
If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
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.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') (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
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Response Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Request Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
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
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-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
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-289Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
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).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
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
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)
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
SOAP Array Overflow (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-606Unchecked Input for Loop Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly check inputs that are used for loop conditions, potentially leading to a denial of service or other consequences because of excessive looping.
Implementation
Do not use user-controlled data for loop conditions.
Implementation
Perform input validation.
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-824Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-772Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-1286Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-1050Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-306Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-839Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-789Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-502Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-184Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-409Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-807Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
CWE-911Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
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-2026:66488
Vendor Severity: high
CVE Count: 67
Additional Cves: CVE-2026-0636, CVE-2026-5588, CVE-2026-9595, CVE-2026-10050, CVE-2026-10051, CVE-2026-12143, CVE-2026-12151, CVE-2026-13149, CVE-2026-13676, CVE-2026-34478, CVE-2026-34480, CVE-2026-34481, CVE-2026-40983, CVE-2026-40984, CVE-2026-42198, CVE-2026-42264, CVE-2026-42338, CVE-2026-42578, CVE-2026-42581, CVE-2026-42583, CVE-2026-42584, CVE-2026-42587, CVE-2026-42588, CVE-2026-44248, CVE-2026-44249, CVE-2026-44486, CVE-2026-44487, CVE-2026-44488, CVE-2026-44492, CVE-2026-44494, CVE-2026-44496, CVE-2026-44893, CVE-2026-45205, CVE-2026-45416, CVE-2026-45736, CVE-2026-48043, CVE-2026-48059, CVE-2026-48779, CVE-2026-49362, CVE-2026-49363, CVE-2026-49364, CVE-2026-49432, CVE-2026-49978, CVE-2026-50010, CVE-2026-50734, CVE-2026-53916, CVE-2026-54512, CVE-2026-54513, CVE-2026-55831, CVE-2026-55833, CVE-2026-55851, CVE-2026-56745, CVE-2026-56746, CVE-2026-56819, CVE-2026-57822, CVE-2026-57967, CVE-2026-59869, CVE-2026-59873, CVE-2026-59874, CVE-2026-59899, CVE-2026-62243, CVE-2026-66257, CVE-2026-66273, CVE-2026-66274, CVE-2026-67593, CVE-2026-68494

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-327, CWE-90, CWE-347 +30

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats