CVE-2026-110910VulnerabilityPublished 3 Nov 2026

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

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-110910· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low · fixed in Red Hat package updates : update Red Hat qs when convenient.

Data as of 4 Nov 2026, 06:35 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (harborist)	CVSS 3.1	3.7
CNA (harborist)	CVSS 4.0	6.3

Patch: Available – fixed in 6.16.2, 6.15.4, 6.14.3 +2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 27 Oct 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 3 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

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ljharbqs	Affected >=6.16.0 <6.16.2	Fixed in 6.16.2
ljharbqs	Affected >=6.15.0 <6.15.4	Fixed in 6.15.4
ljharbqs	Affected >=6.14.0 <6.14.3	Fixed in 6.14.3
ljharbqs	Affected >=6.13.0 <6.13.4	Fixed in 6.13.4
ljharbqs	Affected >=6.12.0 <6.12.6	Fixed in 6.12.6
npmqs`pkg:npm/qs`Other threats	Affected >=6.12.0 <6.12.6 >=6.13.0 <6.13.4 >=6.14.0 <6.14.3 >=6.15.0 <6.15.4 >=6.16.0 <6.16.2	Fixed in 6.12.6 6.13.4 6.14.3 6.15.4 6.16.2

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 (grafana13.2-13.2.4-0.6.hum1) that fix this vulnerability. Users should apply these updates to remediate the issue. If updating is not immediately possible, ensure the allowEmptyArrays option remains set to false when serializing untrusted input. If empty array support is required, sanitize or validate object keys to reject or escape URL delimiter characters (&, =, #) before serialization.

Description

A vulnerability in the qs package used in Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs allows improper encoding of object keys containing empty array values when configured with allowEmptyArrays: true. This flaw can be exploited by a remote attacker supplying crafted input with query delimiter characters to inject arbitrary query parameters or truncate query strings forwarded to downstream services. Red Hat has released updated RPMs including grafana13.2-13.2.4-0.6.hum1 to address this issue.

Impact

The flaw allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary query parameters or truncate query strings by supplying malicious key names with query delimiters in serialized objects. This can lead to unintended behavior in downstream services that consume these query strings, potentially impacting data integrity. The Red Hat CVSS score rates this as a low integrity impact with no confidentiality or availability impact.

Summary

The vulnerability (CVE-2026-110910) exists in the qs.stringify function of the qs package when the allowEmptyArrays option is enabled. The serializer fails to encode object keys associated with empty array values, allowing an attacker who controls input key names containing query delimiters (&, =, #) to perform parameter injection or cause query string truncation in downstream services. This issue affects Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs, specifically the grafana13.2 package. Red Hat has issued a security update with fixed RPM versions to mitigate this vulnerability.

CWE-140Improper Neutralization of Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes delimiters.
Implementation · Input Validation
Developers should anticipate that delimiters will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
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 · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
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)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Delimiters (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-212Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product stores, transfers, or shares a resource that contains sensitive information, but it does not properly remove that information before the product makes the resource available to unauthorized actors.
Requirements
Clearly specify which information should be regarded as private or sensitive, and require that the product offers functionality that allows the user to cleanse the sensitive information from the resource before it is published or exported to other parties.
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.
Implementation · Operation · Attack Surface Reduction
Some tools can automatically analyze documents to redact, strip, or "sanitize" private information, although some human review might be necessary. Tools may vary in terms of which document formats can be processed.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Windows ::DATA Alternate Data Stream (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 4 Nov 2026, 06:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-140, CWE-125, CWE-212

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats