Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 Product Security and Bug Fix Update
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.6 Critical.
Data as of 7 Nov 2026, 18:04 UTC
Thin evidence
One scorer or none| CNA (redhat) | CVSS 3.1 | 9.6 |
|---|
- EPSS
- 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- Low
- Privileges Required
- Low
- User Interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.
- Attack Vector: Network
- The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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
- Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
- Privileges Required: Low
- The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
- User Interaction: None
- The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
- Scope: Changed
- An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
- Confidentiality: High
- There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
- 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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
- Availability: None
- There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.
Exploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 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 7 Nov 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 8automation-controller | Affected– | Fixed in– |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 9automation-controller | Affected– | Fixed in– |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8automation-controller | Affected– | Fixed in– |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 9automation-controller | Affected– | Fixed in– |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 9automation-controller | Affected– | Fixed in– |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9 | Affected– | Fixed in– |
AI-suggested
A security update has been released by Red Hat for Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 on RHEL 9 and RHEL 10 that addresses all identified vulnerabilities. Users should apply this official fix promptly to remediate the critical security issues. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the vendor-provided update.
Description
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 contains multiple critical security vulnerabilities affecting its automation-controller, automation-gateway-proxy, and automation-platform-ui components. These vulnerabilities include remote code execution, privilege escalation, information disclosure, denial of service, cross-site scripting, and unauthorized access. Red Hat has released a security update addressing these issues for Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 on RHEL 9 and RHEL 10.
Impact
The vulnerabilities allow attackers to execute arbitrary code remotely, escalate privileges within the automation platform, disclose sensitive credential and secret information, cause denial of service conditions, perform cross-site scripting attacks, and gain unauthorized access to job outputs and resources. These impacts could compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of automation workflows and underlying infrastructure managed by the platform.
- CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-776Improper Restriction of Recursive Entity References in DTDs (Billion Laughs Attack) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A02:2025: Security Misconfiguration (opens in a new tab)
The product uses XML documents and allows their structure to be defined with a Document Type Definition (DTD), but it does not properly control the number of recursive definitions of entities.
Operation
If possible, prohibit the use of DTDs or use an XML parser that limits the expansion of recursive DTD entities.
Implementation
Before parsing XML files with associated DTDs, scan for recursive entity declarations and do not continue parsing potentially explosive content.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1050Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product has a loop body or loop condition that contains a control element that directly or indirectly consumes platform resources, e.g. messaging, sessions, locks, or file descriptors.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- 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-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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-839Numeric Range Comparison Without Minimum Check (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product checks a value to ensure that it is less than or equal to a maximum, but it does not also verify that the value is greater than or equal to the minimum.
Implementation · Enforcement by Conversion
If the number to be used is always expected to be positive, change the variable type from signed to unsigned or size_t.
Implementation · Input Validation
If the number to be used could have a negative value based on the specification (thus requiring a signed value), but the number should only be positive to preserve code correctness, then include a check to ensure that the value is positive.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-214Invocation of Process Using Visible Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
A process is invoked with sensitive command-line arguments, environment variables, or other elements that can be seen by other processes on the operating system.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command (Argument Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (OS Command Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command before it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- 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-204Observable Response Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-209Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
Implementation
Handle exceptions internally and do not display errors containing potentially sensitive information to a user.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Use naming conventions and strong types to make it easier to spot when sensitive data is being used. When creating structures, objects, or other complex entities, separate the sensitive and non-sensitive data as much as possible.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1241Use of Predictable Algorithm in Random Number Generator (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The device uses an algorithm that is predictable and generates a pseudo-random number.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
It is highly recommended to use a true random number generator (TRNG) to ensure the security of encryption schemes. Hardware-based TRNGs generate unpredictable, unbiased, and independent random numbers because they employ physical phenomena, e.g., electrical noise, as sources to generate random numbers.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-184Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A03:2021: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.
Implementation · Input Validation
Do not rely exclusively on detecting disallowed inputs. There are too many variants to encode a character, especially when different environments are used, so there is a high likelihood of missing some variants. Only use detection of disallowed inputs as a mechanism for detecting suspicious activity.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-835Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition (Infinite Loop) (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.
- CWE-807Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only.
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.
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…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-489Active Debug Code (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A02:2025: Security Misconfiguration (opens in a new tab)
The product is released with debugging code still enabled or active.
Build and Compilation · Distribution
Remove debug code before deploying the application.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-863Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-639Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-15Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-522Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-915Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-134Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-266Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-497Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-348Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-407Name 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-2026:71113
- CVE Count
- 60
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2026-33818, CVE-2026-42504, CVE-2026-54284, CVE-2026-56853, CVE-2026-56858, CVE-2026-56859, CVE-2026-56860, CVE-2026-56862, CVE-2026-59869, CVE-2026-59893, CVE-2026-67214, CVE-2026-67322, CVE-2026-67323, CVE-2026-67325, CVE-2026-69153, CVE-2026-71458, CVE-2026-71459, CVE-2026-71460, CVE-2026-71462, CVE-2026-71463, CVE-2026-71464, CVE-2026-71465, CVE-2026-71491, CVE-2026-73086, CVE-2026-75838, CVE-2026-75884, CVE-2026-78679, CVE-2026-84375, CVE-2026-84470, CVE-2026-84474, CVE-2026-84486, CVE-2026-84499, CVE-2026-84502, CVE-2026-84638, CVE-2026-84643, CVE-2026-84644, CVE-2026-84679, CVE-2026-84680, CVE-2026-84683, CVE-2026-84684, CVE-2026-84686, CVE-2026-84689, CVE-2026-84691, CVE-2026-84692, CVE-2026-84703, CVE-2026-84706, CVE-2026-84707, CVE-2026-84708, CVE-2026-84709, CVE-2026-84711, CVE-2026-84712, CVE-2026-84714, CVE-2026-84716, CVE-2026-84717, CVE-2026-84718, CVE-2026-84719, CVE-2026-84720, CVE-2026-84724, CVE-2026-87817
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:71113 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/ (opens in a new tab)
- docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_ansible_automation_platform/2.6/whats_new-async_updates (opens in a new tab)
- docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_ansible_automation_platform/2.6 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2484204 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2490556 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2498122 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2508411 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2509975 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2509976 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2510021 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2510719 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2512367 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2512368 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2512369 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2512371 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2512372 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2512374 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2512375 (opens in a new tab)
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2514175 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.8 Images Security UpdateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.8 Security UpdateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Satellite 6.17 security updateCriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Satellite 6.16 EUS security updateCriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Satellite 6.18 security updateCriticalVulnerability