CVE-2026-48615VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jun 2026Updated 7 Nov 2026

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

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-48615· Medium 5.9

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 26 Jun 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 10 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
nodejsnode	Affected >=22.22.3 <=22.22.3 >=24.16.0 <=24.16.0 >=26.3.0 <=26.3.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Currently, Red Hat states that no mitigation is available or that existing options do not meet their criteria for ease of use, applicability, or stability. Users should apply the updated RPM packages provided in the advisory once they become available and monitor Red Hat's official channels for further updates or fixes. Customers with a Technical Account Manager (TAM) can consult directly for guidance. Until a fix is released, consider limiting exposure of affected Node.js services and applying any recommended configuration changes from Red Hat if provided.

Description

This update includes the following RPMs: nodejs26: * nodejs26-26.4.0-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * nodejs26-bin-26.4.0-1.2.hum1 (noarch) * nodejs26-devel-26.4.0-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * nodejs26-docs-26.4.0-1.2.hum1 (noarch) * nodejs26-full-i18n-26.4.0-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * nodejs26-libs-26.4.0-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * nodejs26-npm-11.17.0-1.26.4.0.1.2.hum1 (noarch) * nodejs26-npm-bin-26.4.0-1.2.hum1 (noarch) * v8-14.6-devel-14.6.202.34-1.26.4.0.1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * nodejs26-26.4.0-1.2.hum1.src (src)

Impact

The primary impact is an authentication bypass vulnerability in Node.js TLS hostname verification, allowing attackers to circumvent intended security boundaries. This can lead to unauthorized access and compromise of sensitive information in applications using affected Node.js versions for TLS connections. The vulnerability affects confidentiality but does not impact integrity or availability. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time. The issue affects Red Hat Hardened Images containing Node.js versions 22, 24, and 26.

Summary

This Red Hat security advisory (RHSA-2026:30172) updates Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs, specifically Node.js 26 packages, to address three CVEs: CVE-2026-48615, CVE-2026-48618, and CVE-2026-48933. The most detailed vulnerability, CVE-2026-48618, is an authentication bypass in Node.js caused by a mismatch in handling TLS hostnames and unicode dot separators, leading to a wildcard-depth authentication bypass. This flaw affects Node.js versions 22, 24, and 26 as distributed by Red Hat. The advisory notes that no suitable mitigation or patch currently meets Red Hat's standards for deployment and stability. The update includes new RPM packages for nodejs26 and related components. Red Hat scores this vulnerability as high severity, reflecting the potential for unauthorized access and confidentiality impact. No CVSS score is provided by Red Hat, but the issue is rated important due to its impact on TLS authentication.

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
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (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
Fuzzing for application mapping (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Query System for Information (opens in a new tab)
Blind SQL Injection (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-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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Aug 2026, 17:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-209, CWE-289, CWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats