Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI 3.5.2 enhancement update
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.5 Low · fixed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 package updates →: update Red Hat libxml2 when convenient.
Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 02:59 UTC
Thin evidence
One scorer or none| CNA (redhat) | CVSS 3.1 | 2.5 |
|---|
- Patch
- Available – fixed in 2.14.5, 10.2, 8.10.6
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L- Attack Vector
- Local
- Attack Complexity
- High
- Privileges Required
- None
- User Interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.
- Attack Vector: Local
- The vulnerable component 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 remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
- Attack Complexity: High
- A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
- Privileges Required: None
- The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
- User Interaction: Required
- Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
- Scope: Unchanged
- An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
- Confidentiality: None
- There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
- Integrity: None
- There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
- Availability: Low
- Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.
Exploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Jun 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.
What to do
Upgrade libxml2 to 2.14.5; gnome/libxml2 to 10.2 or 8.10.6.
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| libxml2 | Affected
| Fixed in
|
GitHubgnome/libxml2pkg:github/gnome/libxml2Other threats | Affected
| Fixed in
|
Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.
AI-suggested
Currently, no effective mitigation is available that meets Red Hat's criteria for ease of use, deployment, and applicability. Until then, avoid using the interactive shell mode of xmllint with untrusted input. No urgent remediation is required given the low likelihood of exploitation and limited impact.
Description
A vulnerability exists in the interactive shell of the xmllint command-line tool used for parsing XML files in Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI. The flaw involves improper input size checking for overly long commands, which can cause the program to crash. Exploitation requires local access and manual interaction with the tool, making it unlikely in typical environments. The impact is limited to availability due to potential crashes, with no known remote code execution or data compromise.
Impact
The vulnerability can cause denial of service by crashing the xmllint interactive shell when processing overly long commands. It requires local access and manual execution of the tool, limiting the likelihood of exploitation. There is no impact on confidentiality or integrity, and no known remote exploitation. The overall impact is low, affecting availability only in rare and specific usage scenarios.
Summary
CVE-2025-6170 is a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the interactive shell of the xmllint tool, part of the libxml2 library used in Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI. When a user inputs an excessively long command, the tool fails to properly check input size, leading to a crash. The vulnerability requires local user interaction and is rated low severity by Red Hat due to its limited impact and uncommon exploitation scenario. The advisory recommends applying upstream patches when available. This issue affects only the interactive shell mode and does not impact automated or non-interactive usage.
- CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
The product writes past the end of a buffer that was allocated on the stack.
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…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
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 · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-191Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound) (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the correct result.
- 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-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-122Heap-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #16
The product writes past the end of a buffer that was allocated on the heap.
Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
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
- Attack patterns
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-409Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles a compressed input with a very high compression ratio that produces a large output.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-140Improper Neutralization of Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes delimiters.
Implementation · Input Validation
Developers should anticipate that delimiters will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
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-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-208Observable Timing Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
Two separate operations in a product require different amounts of time to complete, in a way that is observable to an actor and reveals security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-59Improper Link Resolution Before File Access (Link Following) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
- 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-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-126Buffer Over-read (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations after the targeted buffer.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-193Off-by-one Error (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
A product calculates or uses an incorrect maximum or minimum value that is 1 more, or 1 less, than the correct value.
Implementation
When copying character arrays or using character manipulation methods, the correct size parameter must be used to account for the null terminator that needs to be added at the end of the array.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
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
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
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-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-78Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-77Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-209Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1333Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-367Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-190Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-918Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-93Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-444Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-295Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-408Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-248Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-347Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-346Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1286Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-66Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-358Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-911Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-470Name 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-2026:92449
- Vendor Severity
- critical
- CVE Count
- 71
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2026-11822, CVE-2026-11824, CVE-2026-11940, CVE-2026-13346, CVE-2026-15588, CVE-2026-16118, CVE-2026-44431, CVE-2026-44432, CVE-2026-47162, CVE-2026-47167, CVE-2026-49264, CVE-2026-49265, CVE-2026-52858, CVE-2026-54369, CVE-2026-54411, CVE-2026-55693, CVE-2026-57455, CVE-2026-57456, CVE-2026-58010, CVE-2026-58011, CVE-2026-58012, CVE-2026-58013, CVE-2026-58014, CVE-2026-58015, CVE-2026-58659, CVE-2026-59856, CVE-2026-59858, CVE-2026-60002, CVE-2026-64830, CVE-2026-64834, CVE-2026-66036, CVE-2026-66039, CVE-2026-69147, CVE-2026-71486, CVE-2026-73066, CVE-2026-73072, CVE-2026-73076, CVE-2026-73077, CVE-2026-73078, CVE-2026-73555, CVE-2026-73556, CVE-2026-73557, CVE-2026-73558, CVE-2026-73559, CVE-2026-73560, CVE-2026-84379, CVE-2026-84380, CVE-2026-84382, CVE-2026-97687, CVE-2026-97688, CVE-2026-97689, CVE-2026-101917, CVE-2026-101918, CVE-2026-102265, CVE-2026-102266, CVE-2026-102267, CVE-2026-102268, CVE-2026-102269, CVE-2026-102270, CVE-2026-102271, CVE-2026-102272, CVE-2026-102273, CVE-2026-102274, CVE-2026-102275, CVE-2026-102598, CVE-2026-103001, CVE-2026-104874, CVE-2026-106439, CVE-2026-106441, CVE-2026-106442
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:92449 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-6170 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-101917 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-101918 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102265 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102266 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102267 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102268 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102269 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102270 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102271 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102272 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102273 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102274 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102275 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102598 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-103001 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-104874 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-106439 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-106441 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AI Base Images 3.0.7 (CUDA)CriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AI Base Images 3.0.7 (CPU)CriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Satellite 6.18 security updateHighVulnerability
- 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