Red Hat Security Advisory: RHOAI 2.25.12 - Red Hat OpenShift AI
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.
Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:08 UTC
- EPSS
- 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- High
- Attack Requirements
- Present
- Privileges Required
- Low
- User Interaction
- None
- Vulnerable system confidentiality
- None
- Vulnerable system integrity
- None
- Vulnerable system availability
- None
- Subsequent system confidentiality
- High
- Subsequent system integrity
- Low
- Subsequent system availability
- None
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: High
- The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
- Attack Requirements: Present
- The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
- Privileges Required: Low
- The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
- 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: None
- There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
- Subsequent system confidentiality: High
- There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
- Subsequent system 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 to the Subsequent 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.
Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.
Exploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 May 2025
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
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
crates.ioidnapkg:cargo/idnaOther threats | Affected
| Fixed in– |
Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.
AI-suggested
Users should upgrade to Red Hat OpenShift AI version 2.25.12 following the official Red Hat documentation to apply the security fixes. The advisory provides a link to the upgrade instructions and emphasizes the importance of updating the cluster to fully apply the errata. No alternative mitigations or workarounds are mentioned.
Description
Red Hat OpenShift AI version 2.25.12 was released with updates addressing multiple security issues. The advisory lists a large number of CVEs including CVE-2024-12224 and others spanning several years, indicating a broad set of vulnerabilities addressed. No specific details about the nature of these vulnerabilities or their impact are provided in the advisory. The update is marked critical and users are directed to official documentation for upgrade instructions.
Impact
The advisory classifies the update as critical, implying that the vulnerabilities addressed could have significant security implications if left unpatched. However, no explicit impact details or exploitation information are provided. There are no known exploits in the wild reported for CVE-2024-12224 or the other CVEs listed at this time.
Summary
The Red Hat Security Advisory RHSA-2026:87410 announces the release of Red Hat OpenShift AI 2.25.12, which includes updates to address numerous security vulnerabilities identified by a wide range of CVEs, including CVE-2024-12224. The advisory does not provide detailed descriptions of individual vulnerabilities or their technical impact but indicates the release is critical and includes updated images. Users are advised to consult the official Red Hat OpenShift AI documentation for upgrade procedures to fully apply this errata update.
- CWE-1289Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.
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-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
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
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-1050Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product has a loop body or loop condition that contains a control element that directly or indirectly consumes platform resources, e.g. messaging, sessions, locks, or file descriptors.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-829Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
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.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
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…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-940Improper Verification of Source of a Communication Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product establishes a communication channel to handle an incoming request that has been initiated by an actor, but it does not properly verify that the request is coming from the expected origin.
Architecture and Design
Use a mechanism that can validate the identity of the source, such as a certificate, and validate the integrity of data to ensure that it cannot be modified in transit using an Adversary-in-the-Middle (AITM) attack.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- 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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- 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-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
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
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-191Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound) (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the correct result.
- CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-538Insertion of Sensitive Information into Externally-Accessible File or Directory (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product places sensitive information into files or directories that are accessible to actors who are allowed to have access to the files, but not to the sensitive information.
Architecture and Design · Operation · System Configuration
Do not expose file and directory information to the user.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-807Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only.
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.
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…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-41Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product is vulnerable to file system contents disclosure through path equivalence. Path equivalence involves the use of special characters in file and directory names. The associated manipulations are intended to generate multiple names for the same object.
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
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
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-250Execution with Unnecessary Privileges (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product performs an operation at a privilege level that is higher than the minimum level required, which creates new weaknesses or amplifies the consequences of other weaknesses.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Identify the functionality that requires additional privileges, such as access to privileged operating system resources. Wrap and centralize this functionality if possible, and isolate the privileged code as much as possible from other code.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Identify the functionality that requires additional privileges, such as access to privileged operating system resources. Wrap and centralize this functionality if possible, and isolate the privileged code as much as possible from other code.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-915Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
Implementation
If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
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
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-79Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-474Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-59Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-248Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-764Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-551Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-444Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1341Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-131Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-611Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-201Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-409Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-772Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-835Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-843Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-501Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-367Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-166Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-911Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-776Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1333Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-93Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1285Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-823Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-839Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-674Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-400Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-454Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-78Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1241Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-88Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-914Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-414Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-140Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-289Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-76Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-89Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1287Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-179Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-346Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-117Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-862Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-943Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-354Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-787Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-494Name 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-2026:87410
- Vendor Severity
- critical
- CVE Count
- 177
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2025-14920, CVE-2025-14921, CVE-2025-14924, CVE-2025-14925, CVE-2025-14926, CVE-2025-14927, CVE-2025-14928, CVE-2025-14929, CVE-2025-14930, CVE-2025-61726, CVE-2025-61729, CVE-2026-5241, CVE-2026-5497, CVE-2026-6734, CVE-2026-8643, CVE-2026-9697, CVE-2026-11822, CVE-2026-11824, CVE-2026-12151, CVE-2026-12860, CVE-2026-15143, CVE-2026-15574, CVE-2026-15679, CVE-2026-15925, CVE-2026-16221, CVE-2026-18427, CVE-2026-18446, CVE-2026-18949, CVE-2026-19481, CVE-2026-19484, CVE-2026-19534, CVE-2026-25681, CVE-2026-25960, CVE-2026-27136, CVE-2026-28390, CVE-2026-28684, CVE-2026-31812, CVE-2026-32283, CVE-2026-33186, CVE-2026-33805, CVE-2026-33811, CVE-2026-33814, CVE-2026-34993, CVE-2026-39821, CVE-2026-39852, CVE-2026-39892, CVE-2026-40682, CVE-2026-41178, CVE-2026-42502, CVE-2026-42561, CVE-2026-44431, CVE-2026-44432, CVE-2026-44660, CVE-2026-44705, CVE-2026-45820, CVE-2026-47219, CVE-2026-48526, CVE-2026-48710, CVE-2026-48746, CVE-2026-49114, CVE-2026-49825, CVE-2026-49855, CVE-2026-50559, CVE-2026-54283, CVE-2026-54399, CVE-2026-54428, CVE-2026-55831, CVE-2026-55833, CVE-2026-56121, CVE-2026-56746, CVE-2026-56819, CVE-2026-56853, CVE-2026-56858, CVE-2026-56859, CVE-2026-56860, CVE-2026-56862, CVE-2026-58059, CVE-2026-59296, CVE-2026-59879, CVE-2026-59884, CVE-2026-59885, CVE-2026-59886, CVE-2026-59899, CVE-2026-62243, CVE-2026-62384, CVE-2026-63209, CVE-2026-63374, CVE-2026-65898, CVE-2026-65918, CVE-2026-66007, CVE-2026-67213, CVE-2026-67214, CVE-2026-67312, CVE-2026-68494, CVE-2026-68497, CVE-2026-68770, CVE-2026-69097, CVE-2026-69112, CVE-2026-69152, CVE-2026-69153, CVE-2026-69243, CVE-2026-69244, CVE-2026-71281, CVE-2026-73086, CVE-2026-73088, CVE-2026-73089, CVE-2026-73415, CVE-2026-73417, CVE-2026-73502, CVE-2026-73508, CVE-2026-73620, CVE-2026-73622, CVE-2026-73623, CVE-2026-73624, CVE-2026-73625, CVE-2026-73627, CVE-2026-73646, CVE-2026-75838, CVE-2026-75899, CVE-2026-75931, CVE-2026-75975, CVE-2026-76098, CVE-2026-76169, CVE-2026-76172, CVE-2026-76222, CVE-2026-76905, CVE-2026-77354, CVE-2026-77874, CVE-2026-78676, CVE-2026-78677, CVE-2026-78679, CVE-2026-78682, CVE-2026-79674, CVE-2026-79675, CVE-2026-80205, CVE-2026-81722, CVE-2026-81724, CVE-2026-81727, CVE-2026-82397, CVE-2026-82417, CVE-2026-84292, CVE-2026-84375, CVE-2026-84394, CVE-2026-84428, CVE-2026-84445, CVE-2026-84469, CVE-2026-84504, CVE-2026-84782, CVE-2026-84961, CVE-2026-85124, CVE-2026-85152, CVE-2026-85525, CVE-2026-86049, CVE-2026-86332, CVE-2026-87776, CVE-2026-87817, CVE-2026-87819, CVE-2026-88029, CVE-2026-88031, CVE-2026-89418, CVE-2026-89425, CVE-2026-91777, CVE-2026-91990, CVE-2026-92599, CVE-2026-93599, CVE-2026-93657, CVE-2026-93749, CVE-2026-96749, CVE-2026-102831, CVE-2026-102925, CVE-2026-102930, CVE-2026-102937, CVE-2026-102938, CVE-2026-103262, CVE-2026-104851, CVE-2026-105744
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:87410 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-12224 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14920 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14921 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14924 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14925 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14926 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14927 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14928 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14929 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14930 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-61726 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-61729 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102831 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102925 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102930 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102937 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-102938 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-103262 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-104851 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: cert-manager Operator for Red Hat OpenShift 1.18.2HighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: cert-manager Operator for Red Hat OpenShift 1.18.2HighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: cert-manager Operator for Red Hat OpenShift 1.18.2HighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 Container Release UpdateCriticalVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift API for Data ProtectionHighVulnerability