CVE-2026-55892VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jul 2026Updated 29 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-2026-57456

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Jul 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
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected =9.2.780-1.hum1 Red Hat Red Hat Hardened Images src vim-main@src vim-0:9.2.780-1.hum1@src vim-2:9.2.780-1.hum1@src	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Users should avoid opening untrusted Python files or using Python omni-completion on such files. If Python omni-completion is not required, it can be disabled by adding 'autocmd FileType python setlocal omnifunc=' to the .vimrc file and restarting Vim. This prevents execution of the vulnerable code. The advisory does not explicitly confirm a fixed version or patch availability; therefore, users should monitor Red Hat's official channels for updates and apply the update when available.

Description

This update includes the following RPMs: vim: * vim-X11-9.2.780-1.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * vim-common-9.2.780-1.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * vim-data-9.2.780-1.hum1 (noarch) * vim-default-editor-9.2.780-1.hum1 (noarch) * vim-enhanced-9.2.780-1.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * vim-filesystem-9.2.780-1.hum1 (noarch) * vim-minimal-9.2.780-1.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * xxd-9.2.780-1.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * vim-9.2.780-1.hum1.src (src)

Impact

The vulnerability allows local attackers to execute arbitrary code on systems running vulnerable Vim versions by exploiting the Python omni-completion feature with crafted files. This can lead to full system compromise where Vim is executed. The flaw impacts confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected system. No known exploits in the wild are reported. The severity is rated high by Red Hat.

Summary

Red Hat issued a security advisory (RHSA-2026:35387) for Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs, including Vim packages version 9.2.780-1.hum1. The advisory addresses multiple CVEs, notably CVE-2026-57456, which involves a vulnerability in Vim's Python omni-completion feature. This vulnerability allows local attackers to execute arbitrary Python code by opening a malicious file and triggering omni-completion, due to improper handling of docstrings. The advisory lists affected Vim RPMs and recommends mitigation by disabling Python omni-completion or avoiding untrusted Python files. No explicit patch version or fixed version is provided in the advisory content, and the update is described as a bug fix and enhancement update.

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
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).
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
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (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, 17:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-787, CWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats