CVE-2025-32996VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jun 2025Updated 7 Sep 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Developer Hub 1.6.2 release

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 1.6.2 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.6.2

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Jun 2025
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

Upgrade Red Hat to 1.6.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=1.6.0 <1.6.2 Red Hat RHDH RHDH 1.6 amd64 registry.redhat.io/rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9@sha256:79618b38d6f02457954b227d538e238fdebbb72a220af5bd6be3cfab3ad0f262_amd64 Red Hat Developer Hub Red Hat Developer Hub 1.6 Red Hat Developer Hub (RHDH) Red Hat Developer Hub (RHDH) 1.6	Fixed in 1.6.2

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released Red Hat Developer Hub version 1.6.2 which addresses these vulnerabilities. Users should upgrade to version 1.6.2 or later to remediate the issues. No other mitigations are recommended or available that meet Red Hat's criteria for ease of use and applicability. There are no known workarounds or temporary fixes. Patch status is confirmed by the vendor advisory.

Description

Red Hat Developer Hub (RHDH) is Red Hat's enterprise-grade, self-managed, customizable developer portal based on Backstage.io. RHDH is supported on OpenShift and other major Kubernetes clusters (AKS, EKS, GKE). The core features of RHDH include a single pane of glass, a centralized software catalog, self-service via golden path templates, and Tech Docs. RHDH is extensible by plugins.

Impact

The vulnerabilities could lead to altered execution logic and potential security issues related to control flow and path traversal in the affected RHDH versions. The specific impact includes the possibility of the writeBody function being called twice, which may affect application stability or behavior. Red Hat rates the severity as high but no active exploitation is known. The impact is limited to affected versions prior to 1.6.2.

Summary

Red Hat Developer Hub (RHDH) is an enterprise-grade developer portal based on Backstage.io, supported on Kubernetes platforms. Multiple vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-32996, CVE-2025-32997, CVE-2025-47273, CVE-2025-48387) affect RHDH versions >=1.6.0 and <1.6.2. One notable issue (CVE-2025-32996) is a control flow flaw in the http-proxy-middleware component, allowing the writeBody function to be called twice due to improper control flow handling. These vulnerabilities have been addressed in RHDH 1.6.2 and later releases. Red Hat has not provided a CVSS score but classifies the severity as high. No known exploits in the wild have been reported. The vendor advisory recommends upgrading to version 1.6.2 or later.

CWE-670Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.
CWE-754Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
Implementation
If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
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
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Aug 2026, 17:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-670, CWE-754, CWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats