CVE-2026-53486VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jul 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

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

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Jul 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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.

Description

This update includes the following RPMs: dotnet8.0: * aspnetcore-runtime-8.0-8.0.28-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * aspnetcore-runtime-dbg-8.0-8.0.28-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * aspnetcore-targeting-pack-8.0-8.0.28-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-apphost-pack-8.0-8.0.28-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-hostfxr-8.0-8.0.28-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-runtime-8.0-8.0.28-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-runtime-dbg-8.0-8.0.28-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-sdk-8.0-8.0.128-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-sdk-8.0-source-built-artifacts-8.0.128-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-sdk-dbg-8.0-8.0.128-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-targeting-pack-8.0-8.0.28-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet-templates-8.0-8.0.128-1.2.hum1 (aarch64, x86_64) * dotnet8.0-8.0.128-1.2.hum1.src (src) Security Fix(es): dotnet8.0: * CVE-2026-53486

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
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
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-606Unchecked Input for Loop Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly check inputs that are used for loop conditions, potentially leading to a denial of service or other consequences because of excessive looping.
Implementation
Do not use user-controlled data for loop conditions.
Implementation
Perform input validation.
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

Description

WeaknessesCWE-22, CWE-606

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats