Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5.3 Technology Preview security update
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High →: upgrade Red Hat libxml2 to 2.12.7 or 2.11.8 soon.
Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:58 UTC
- Patch
- Available – fixed in 2.12.7, 2.11.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- Low
- 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: Low
- Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
- 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 13 May 2024
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.
What to do
Upgrade gnome/libxml2 to 2.12.7 or 2.11.8.
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
GitHubgnome/libxml2pkg:github/gnome/libxml2Other threats | Affected
| Fixed in
|
Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.
Description
Technology Preview features are not fully supported, may not be functionally complete, and are not suitable for deployment in production.
- CWE-126Buffer Over-read (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations after the targeted buffer.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
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…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-825Expired Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.
Architecture and Design
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation
When freeing pointers, be sure to set them to NULL once they are freed. However, the utilization of multiple or complex data structures may lower the usefulness of this strategy.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output 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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-190Integer Overflow or Wraparound (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
Requirements
Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
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.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-93Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
Implementation
Avoid using CRLF as a special sequence.
Implementation
Appropriately filter or quote CRLF sequences in user-controlled input.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-74Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Requirements
Programming languages and supporting technologies might be chosen which are not subject to these issues.
Implementation
Utilize an appropriate mix of allowlist and denylist parsing to filter control-plane syntax from all input.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-303Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-824Access of Uninitialized Pointer (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product accesses or uses a pointer that has not been initialized.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-778Insufficient Logging (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A09:2025: Security Logging & Alerting Failures (opens in a new tab)
When a security-critical event occurs, the product either does not record the event or omits important details about the event when logging it.
Architecture and Design
Use a centralized logging mechanism that supports multiple levels of detail.
Implementation
Ensure that all security-related successes and failures can be logged. When storing data in the cloud (e.g., AWS S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to enable and capture detailed logging information.
Operation
Be sure to set the level of logging appropriately in a production environment. Sufficient data should be logged to enable system administrators to detect attacks, diagnose errors, and recover from attacks.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-791Incomplete Filtering of Special Elements (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives data from an upstream component, but does not completely filter special elements before sending it to a downstream component.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-201Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.
Requirements
Specify which data in the software should be regarded as sensitive. Consider which types of users should have access to which types of data.
Implementation
Ensure that any possibly sensitive data specified in the requirements is verified with designers to ensure that it is either a calculated risk or mitigated elsewhere.
System Configuration
Setup default error messages so that unexpected errors do not disclose sensitive information.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-179Incorrect Behavior Order: Early Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product validates input before applying protection mechanisms that modify the input, which could allow an attacker to bypass the validation via dangerous inputs that only arise after the modification.
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-178Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
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).
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-617Reachable Assertion (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
Implementation
Make sensitive open/close operation non reachable by directly user-controlled data (e.g. open/close resources)
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on user data.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-805Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the 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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-838Inappropriate Encoding for Output Context (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product uses or specifies an encoding when generating output to a downstream component, but the specified encoding is not the same as the encoding that is expected by the downstream component.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use context-aware encoding. That is, understand which encoding is being used by the downstream component, and ensure that this encoding is used. If an encoding can be specified, do so, instead of assuming that the default encoding is the same as the default being assumed by the downstream component.
Architecture and Design · Output Encoding
Where possible, use communications protocols or data formats that provide strict boundaries between control and data. If this is not feasible, ensure that the protocols or formats allow the communicating components to explicitly state which encoding/decoding method is being used.
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.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-367Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
Implementation
The most basic advice for TOCTOU vulnerabilities is to not perform a check before the use. This does not resolve the underlying issue of the execution of a function on a resource whose state and identity cannot be assured, but it does help to limit the false sense of security given by the check.
Implementation
When the file being altered is owned by the current user and group, set the effective gid and uid to that of the current user and group when executing this statement.
Architecture and Design
Limit the interleaving of operations on files from multiple processes.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-208Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-131Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-125Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1284Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-862Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-134Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-59Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-385Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-606Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-295Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-122Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-347Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-22Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-674Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-415Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-835Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-476Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1287Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-191Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-130Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-78Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-281Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-115Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-306Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-168Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-272Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-475Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-170Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-193Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-205Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-354Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-409Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-407Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1204Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-140Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-94Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-787Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-923Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-444Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- GCVE source
- db.gcve.eu
- Csaf Category
- csaf_security_advisory
- Csaf Version
- 2.0
- Publisher
- Red Hat Product Security
- Advisory ID
- RHSA-2026:58981
- Vendor Severity
- critical
- CVE Count
- 118
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2025-5278, CVE-2025-6075, CVE-2025-6170, CVE-2025-10911, CVE-2025-13151, CVE-2025-13837, CVE-2025-14087, CVE-2025-14512, CVE-2025-15282, CVE-2025-59375, CVE-2026-0672, CVE-2026-0865, CVE-2026-1502, CVE-2026-1965, CVE-2026-2100, CVE-2026-2297, CVE-2026-3644, CVE-2026-3783, CVE-2026-3832, CVE-2026-3833, CVE-2026-4046, CVE-2026-4224, CVE-2026-4437, CVE-2026-4438, CVE-2026-4878, CVE-2026-5260, CVE-2026-5419, CVE-2026-5435, CVE-2026-5450, CVE-2026-5928, CVE-2026-6238, CVE-2026-6472, CVE-2026-6473, CVE-2026-6474, CVE-2026-6475, CVE-2026-6477, CVE-2026-6478, CVE-2026-6479, CVE-2026-6637, CVE-2026-7383, CVE-2026-8286, CVE-2026-9076, CVE-2026-9256, CVE-2026-9547, CVE-2026-11940, CVE-2026-13757, CVE-2026-14164, CVE-2026-15308, CVE-2026-15588, CVE-2026-28390, CVE-2026-29111, CVE-2026-31790, CVE-2026-33845, CVE-2026-33846, CVE-2026-34180, CVE-2026-34181, CVE-2026-34182, CVE-2026-34183, CVE-2026-34982, CVE-2026-35177, CVE-2026-35385, CVE-2026-35386, CVE-2026-35387, CVE-2026-35388, CVE-2026-35414, CVE-2026-35535, CVE-2026-40355, CVE-2026-40356, CVE-2026-41411, CVE-2026-41989, CVE-2026-42009, CVE-2026-42010, CVE-2026-42011, CVE-2026-42012, CVE-2026-42013, CVE-2026-42014, CVE-2026-42015, CVE-2026-42055, CVE-2026-42764, CVE-2026-42766, CVE-2026-42767, CVE-2026-42768, CVE-2026-42769, CVE-2026-42770, CVE-2026-42945, CVE-2026-44431, CVE-2026-44432, CVE-2026-45186, CVE-2026-45409, CVE-2026-45445, CVE-2026-45446, CVE-2026-45447, CVE-2026-46483, CVE-2026-47162, CVE-2026-47167, CVE-2026-48864, CVE-2026-52858, CVE-2026-54369, CVE-2026-54370, CVE-2026-55653, CVE-2026-55654, CVE-2026-55655, CVE-2026-55693, CVE-2026-57455, CVE-2026-57456, CVE-2026-58010, CVE-2026-58011, CVE-2026-58012, CVE-2026-58013, CVE-2026-58014, CVE-2026-58015, CVE-2026-58016, CVE-2026-58055, CVE-2026-59856, CVE-2026-59858, CVE-2026-59996, CVE-2026-60002
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:58981 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/articles/7141172 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/products/red-hat-update-infrastructure (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-34459 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-10911 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-13151 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-13837 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14087 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14512 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-15282 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-5278 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-59375 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-6075 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-6170 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-0672 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-0865 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-11940 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-13757 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-14164 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-1502 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: A Subscription Management tool for finding and reporting Red Hat product usageHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5.2 security updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: OpenShift Container Platform 4.12.97 bug fix and security updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: OpenShift Container Platform 4.17.57 bug fix and security updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: OpenShift Container Platform 4.16.69 bug fix and security updateHighVulnerability