Red Hat Security Advisory: RHOAI 3.3.3 - Red Hat OpenShift AI
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High →: upgrade Red Hat to 3.3.3 soon.
Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC
- EPSS
- 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
- Patch
- Available – fixed in 3.3.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:H- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- High
- Privileges Required
- Low
- User Interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
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: Low
- The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
- 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: 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: High
- There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; 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 impacted component (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).
Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.
Exploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Oct 2025
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 29 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
Upgrade Red Hat to 3.3.3.
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Product Security Red Hat | Affected
| Fixed in
|
AI-suggested
Currently, Red Hat has not provided an official fix or mitigation that meets their criteria for ease of use, deployment, and stability. Customers with Red Hat Technical Account Managers (TAM) can seek direct guidance. No specific workaround or mitigation is available at this time.
Description
Release of RHOAI 3.3.3 provides these changes:
Impact
An attacker can bypass cryptographic verification and security decisions in affected Red Hat products by exploiting this vulnerability, potentially leading to unauthorized code execution or other unintended behaviors. The impact affects confidentiality and integrity of cryptographic operations but does not affect availability. No known exploits in the wild have been reported. The vulnerability affects multiple Red Hat products that use node-forge for cryptographic functions.
Summary
CVE-2025-6242 is a vulnerability in the node-forge library used by Red Hat OpenShift AI and other Red Hat products. It involves an interpretation conflict in ASN.1 structure parsing that allows unauthenticated attackers to bypass downstream cryptographic verification and security decisions by crafting malicious ASN.1 data. This leads to semantic divergence in schema validation. The vulnerability is rated important by Red Hat with a CVSS v3 base score of 8.7 (Red Hat rating). It affects cryptographic integrity and confidentiality but does not impact availability. Red Hat has not provided a patch or mitigation that meets their standards for deployment and stability. Updated Red Hat OpenShift AI images (3.3.3) are available, but no direct fix for this CVE is included. Red Hat continues to investigate and may provide fixes in future updates.
- CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (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.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
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.
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-1321Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes (Prototype Pollution) (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control modifications of attributes of the object prototype.
Implementation
By freezing the object prototype first (for example, Object.freeze(Object.prototype)), modification of the prototype becomes impossible.
Architecture and Design
By blocking modifications of attributes that resolve to object prototype, such as proto or prototype, this weakness can be mitigated.
Implementation · Input Validation
When handling untrusted objects, validating using a schema can be used.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
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-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (Cross-site Scripting) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
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.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
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-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended 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-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-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (OS Command Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command before it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-674Uncontrolled Recursion (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.
Implementation
Ensure that an end condition will be reached under all logic conditions. The end condition may include checking against the depth of recursion and exiting with an error if the recursion goes too deep. The complexity of the end condition contributes to the effectiveness of this action.
Implementation
Increase the stack size.
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-409Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles a compressed input with a very high compression ratio that produces a large output.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- 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
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
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-209Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
Implementation
Handle exceptions internally and do not display errors containing potentially sensitive information to a user.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Use naming conventions and strong types to make it easier to spot when sensitive data is being used. When creating structures, objects, or other complex entities, separate the sensitive and non-sensitive data as much as possible.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1287Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
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-501Trust Boundary Violation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product mixes trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure or structured message.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-59Improper Link Resolution Before File Access (Link Following) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
- 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-776Improper Restriction of Recursive Entity References in DTDs (Billion Laughs Attack) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A02:2025: Security Misconfiguration (opens in a new tab)
The product uses XML documents and allows their structure to be defined with a Document Type Definition (DTD), but it does not properly control the number of recursive definitions of entities.
Operation
If possible, prohibit the use of DTDs or use an XML parser that limits the expansion of recursive DTD entities.
Implementation
Before parsing XML files with associated DTDs, scan for recursive entity declarations and do not continue parsing potentially explosive content.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-835Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-248Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-347Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-823Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-551Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-306Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-131Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-212Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-502Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-266Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-617Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-444Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-427Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-295Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-117Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1286Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-354Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-20Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1392Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-807Name 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-2026:19712
- CVE Count
- 46
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2025-12816, CVE-2025-13465, CVE-2025-15284, CVE-2025-59057, CVE-2025-61726, CVE-2025-61729, CVE-2025-62164, CVE-2025-62718, CVE-2025-64756, CVE-2025-66031, CVE-2025-66418, CVE-2025-66448, CVE-2025-66471, CVE-2025-69223, CVE-2025-69873, CVE-2026-0846, CVE-2026-0847, CVE-2026-4800, CVE-2026-21441, CVE-2026-21884, CVE-2026-22029, CVE-2026-22778, CVE-2026-23490, CVE-2026-23745, CVE-2026-24049, CVE-2026-24486, CVE-2026-24779, CVE-2026-25639, CVE-2026-25990, CVE-2026-27893, CVE-2026-28684, CVE-2026-29063, CVE-2026-29074, CVE-2026-30922, CVE-2026-31812, CVE-2026-32597, CVE-2026-32829, CVE-2026-32981, CVE-2026-33186, CVE-2026-33231, CVE-2026-33236, CVE-2026-34986, CVE-2026-40175, CVE-2026-40192, CVE-2026-40895
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:19712 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-12816 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-13465 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-15284 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-59057 (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-2025-62164 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-6242 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-62718 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-64756 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-66031 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-66418 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-66448 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-66471 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-69223 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-69873 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-0846 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-0847 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-21441 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:10184 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-11157 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-12103 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-14009 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-61728 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-68131 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-69227 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-69228 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-69534 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-1002 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-22773 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: .NET 8.0 security, bug fix, and enhancement updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: .NET 9.0 security, bug fix, and enhancement updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: .NET 8.0 security, bug fix, and enhancement updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: .NET 9.0 security, bug fix, and enhancement updateHighVulnerability
- Red Hat Security Advisory: .NET 8.0 security, bug fix, and enhancement updateHighVulnerability