CVE-2026-13149VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jun 2026Updated 30 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs Security Update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-13149· High 7.7

Public exploit available · CVSS 7.7 High.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.7High

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

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

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/S:N/AU:Y/R:U/V:D/RE:M/U:Amber

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Supplemental metrics

Safety: Negligible
Automatable: Yes
Recovery: User
Value Density: Diffuse
Vulnerability Response Effort: Moderate
Provider Urgency: Amber

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability
Safety: Negligible: Consequences of the vulnerability meet definition of IEC 61508 consequence category "negligible."
Automatable: Yes: Attackers can reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation (e.g., the vulnerability is “wormable”).
Recovery: User: The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed.
Value Density: Diffuse: The vulnerable system has limited resources. That is, the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event are relatively small. An example of Diffuse (think: limited) Value Density would be an attack on a single email client vulnerability.
Vulnerability Response Effort: Moderate: The actions required to respond to a vulnerability require some effort on behalf of the consumer and could cause minimal service impact to implement. Examples include: simple remote update, disabling of a subsystem, or a low-touch software upgrade such as a driver update.
Provider Urgency: Amber: Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having a moderate urgency.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Jun 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 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
juliangruberbrace-expansion	Affected <=5.0.6	Fixed in–
npmbrace-expansion`pkg:npm/brace-expansion`Other threats	Affected <=5.0.6	Fixed in–
npmbrace-expansion`pkg:npm/brace-expansion`Other threats	Affected <=5.0.6	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 RPMs for nodejs26 packages that address this vulnerability. Users should apply these updates to remediate the issue. There is no practical workaround or mitigation other than upgrading to a fixed version of brace-expansion when available. The vendor manages remediation through updated packages; users should follow Red Hat's advisory and update instructions.

Description

A denial of service vulnerability exists in the brace-expansion npm package used by Red Hat Hardened Images. The expand() function can be triggered to consume excessive CPU and block the event loop by processing specially crafted strings with consecutive non-expanding brace groups. This leads to exponential-time complexity and potential system unavailability. The vulnerability is addressed by updating to a fixed version of brace-expansion when available.

Impact

The vulnerability causes high CPU usage and event-loop blocking, resulting in denial of service conditions on affected systems running vulnerable versions of the brace-expansion package. It does not impact confidentiality or integrity but severely affects availability.

Summary

CVE-2026-13149 is a denial of service vulnerability in the brace-expansion npm package, specifically in the expand() function. An attacker can supply a crafted input string containing consecutive non-expanding brace groups that causes exponential-time complexity during expansion. This results in significant CPU consumption and event-loop blocking, leading to denial of service. The vulnerability affects Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs including nodejs26 packages. The max option does not mitigate the issue as it limits output size but not recursion work. There is no practical mitigation other than upgrading to a fixed version of brace-expansion once released. Red Hat has issued an advisory and updated RPMs accordingly.

CWE-1333Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a regular expression with a worst-case computational complexity that is inefficient and possibly exponential.
Architecture and Design
Use regular expressions that do not support backtracking, e.g. by removing nested quantifiers.
System Configuration
Set backtracking limits in the configuration of the regular expression implementation, such as PHP's pcre.backtrack_limit. Also consider limits on execution time for the process.
Implementation
Do not use regular expressions with untrusted input. If regular expressions must be used, avoid using backtracking in the expression.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (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).
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-170Improper Null Termination (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.
Requirements
Use a language that is not susceptible to these issues. However, be careful of null byte interaction errors (CWE-626) with lower-level constructs that may be written in a language that is susceptible.
Implementation
Ensure that all string functions used are understood fully as to how they append null characters. Also, be wary of off-by-one errors when appending nulls to the end of strings.
Implementation
If performance constraints permit, special code can be added that validates null-termination of string buffers, this is a rather naive and error-prone solution.
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-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-279Incorrect Execution-Assigned Permissions (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
While it is executing, the product sets the permissions of an object in a way that violates the intended permissions that have been specified by the user.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-648Incorrect Use of Privileged APIs (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Low
The product does not conform to the API requirements for a function call that requires extra privileges. This could allow attackers to gain privileges by causing the function to be called incorrectly.
Implementation
Before calling privileged APIs, always ensure that the assumptions made by the privileged code hold true prior to making the call.
Architecture and Design
Know architecture and implementation weaknesses of the privileged APIs and make sure to account for these weaknesses before calling the privileged APIs to ensure that they can be called safely.
Implementation
If privileged APIs make certain assumptions about data, context or state validity that are passed by the caller, the calling code must ensure that these assumptions have been validated prior to making the call.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Hijacking a privileged process (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 30 Oct 2026, 10:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1333, CWE-770, CWE-289 +4

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats