CVE-2026-4046VulnerabilityPublished 1 May 2026Updated 16 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-5435

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-4046· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

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: 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Mar 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
The GNU C Libraryglibc	Affected >=2.3.3 <=2.43	Fixed in–
Debiandebian/glibc`pkg:deb/debian/glibc`Other threats	Affected =2.3.3	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated RPM packages for glibc and related components as part of the Red Hat Hardened Images update. Users should apply these official patches promptly to remediate the vulnerability. No alternative mitigations or workarounds are indicated in the advisory. Patch status is confirmed by the vendor advisory.

Description

This update includes the following RPMs: glibc: * compat-libpthread-nonshared-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-all-langpacks-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-benchtests-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-common-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-devel-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-doc-2.42-12.hum1 (noarch) * glibc-gconv-extra-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-aa-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-af-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-agr-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ak-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-am-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-an-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-anp-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ar-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-as-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ast-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ayc-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-az-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-be-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-bem-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ber-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-bg-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-bhb-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-bho-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-bi-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-bn-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-bo-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-br-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-brx-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-bs-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-byn-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ca-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ce-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-chr-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ckb-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-cmn-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-crh-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-cs-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-csb-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-cv-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-cy-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-da-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-de-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-doi-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-dsb-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-dv-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-dz-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-el-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-en-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-eo-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-es-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-et-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-eu-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-fa-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ff-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-fi-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-fil-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-fo-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-fr-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-fur-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-fy-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ga-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-gbm-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-gd-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-gez-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-gl-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-gu-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-gv-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ha-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-hak-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-he-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-hi-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-hif-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-hne-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-hr-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-hsb-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ht-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-hu-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-hy-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ia-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-id-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ig-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ik-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-is-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-it-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-iu-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ja-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-ka-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-kab-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-kk-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-kl-2.42-12.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * glibc-langpack-km-2.4

Impact

The vulnerability can lead to denial of service by crashing affected applications or systems. Additionally, it may allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code, compromising system integrity and confidentiality. The impact is rated medium by Red Hat, reflecting the potential for both availability disruption and code execution. There are no reports of active exploitation in the wild.

Summary

The vulnerability (CVE-2026-5435) exists in glibc's deprecated TSIG record printing functions, which fail to properly manage memory buffers, resulting in an out-of-bounds write. This buffer overflow (CWE-120) can be triggered by processing maliciously crafted TSIG records, potentially leading to denial of service or arbitrary code execution. Red Hat has released updated RPM packages for glibc and related components in Red Hat Hardened Images to address this flaw. The advisory notes that Red Hat's CVSS score differs from other sources due to product-specific factors. No known exploits are reported in the wild at this time.

CWE-617Reachable Assertion (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
Implementation
If the assertion statement is required (e.g., for security or reliability), change the invoking code to avoid the conditions that trigger the assertion.
Implementation
Consider changing the assertion to some other less "fatal" error. This might not be easy to implement, since other code may be needed to handle the error.
Implementation
Make sensitive open/close operations non-reachable from directly user-controlled data (e.g. open/close resources)
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
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
MIME Conversion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-131Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer.
Implementation
When allocating a buffer for the purpose of transforming, converting, or encoding an input, allocate enough memory to handle the largest possible encoding. For example, in a routine that converts "&" characters to "&" for HTML entity encoding, the output buffer needs to be at least 5 times as large as the input…
Implementation
Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles…
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (opens in a new tab)
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
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
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1284Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Aug 2026, 16:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-617, CWE-120, CWE-131 +2

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats