Red Hat Security Advisory: RHOAI 3.5.2 - Red Hat OpenShift AI
Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.0 Critical →: upgrade Red Hat tornado to 6.4.1 as a priority.
Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:08 UTC
- EPSS
- 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
- Patch
- Available – fixed in 6.4.1
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/SA:N- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- High
- Attack Requirements
- Present
- Privileges Required
- None
- User Interaction
- None
- Vulnerable system confidentiality
- Low
- Vulnerable system integrity
- High
- Vulnerable system availability
- None
- Subsequent system confidentiality
- Low
- Subsequent system integrity
- High
- 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: None
- The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
- User Interaction: None
- The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
- Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
- There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
- Vulnerable system integrity: High
- There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
- Vulnerable system availability: None
- There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
- Subsequent system confidentiality: Low
- There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Subsequent System.
- Subsequent system integrity: High
- There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence 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 15 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors
A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.
- Disclosed
- The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
- Detectable
- A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
- Weaponised
- Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
- Exploited in the wild
- CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
- Observed by OffSeq Mirage
- OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.
Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.
What to do
Upgrade tornado to 6.4.1.
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| tornadowebtornado | Affected
| Fixed in
|
PyPItornadopkg:pypi/tornadoOther 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
A fixed version, Red Hat OpenShift AI 3.5.2, is available. Users are advised to upgrade their clusters following the official Red Hat documentation linked in the advisory to fully apply the errata update. No additional mitigation steps are specified or required beyond applying this update.
Description
Red Hat OpenShift AI 3.5.2 was released as a security advisory addressing multiple vulnerabilities, including CVE-2024-14029. The advisory announces updated images and provides upgrade instructions but does not detail specific fixes for CVE-2024-14029 or other listed CVEs. The advisory is marked critical in severity but does not confirm known exploitation in the wild.
Impact
The advisory categorizes the issue as critical, implying potential for significant security impact if unpatched. However, no specific impact details or exploitation reports are provided. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests the threat is currently theoretical or mitigated by the update. Without detailed vulnerability descriptions, the precise impact on confidentiality, integrity, or availability cannot be determined from the provided data.
- CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
Implementation
Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache.
Implementation
Use only SSL communication.
Implementation
Terminate the client session after each request.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-524Use of Cache Containing Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The code uses a cache that contains sensitive information, but the cache can be read by an actor outside of the intended control sphere.
Architecture and Design
Protect information stored in cache.
Architecture and Design
Do not store unnecessarily sensitive information in the cache.
Architecture and Design
Consider using encryption in the cache.
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
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-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-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-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-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-166Improper Handling of Missing Special Element (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles when an expected special element is missing.
Developers should anticipate that special elements will be removed 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 · 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-407Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Low
An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.
- 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 ('XML Entity Expansion') (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-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-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-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-823Use of Out-of-range Pointer Offset (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product performs pointer arithmetic on a valid pointer, but it uses an offset that can point outside of the intended range of valid memory locations for the resulting pointer.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
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 when 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-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-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-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-772Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
It is good practice to be responsible for freeing all resources you allocate and to be consistent with how and where you free resources in a function. If you allocate resources that you intend to free upon completion of the function, you must be sure to free the resources at all exit points for that function including…
Operation · Architecture and Design · Resource Limitation
Use resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available.
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-140Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-918Name 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-1285Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-89Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-88Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-606Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-59Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1287Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-835Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-319Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-409Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-1289Name 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-862Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-943Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-94Name 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)
- CWE-915Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-430Name 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-2026:86891
- Vendor Severity
- critical
- CVE Count
- 93
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2026-13697, CVE-2026-15679, CVE-2026-15789, CVE-2026-18427, CVE-2026-19534, CVE-2026-37237, CVE-2026-49825, CVE-2026-49855, CVE-2026-54284, CVE-2026-56859, CVE-2026-59296, CVE-2026-59893, CVE-2026-62243, CVE-2026-62384, CVE-2026-63209, CVE-2026-63374, CVE-2026-66007, CVE-2026-68494, CVE-2026-68497, CVE-2026-69097, CVE-2026-69112, CVE-2026-69152, CVE-2026-69243, CVE-2026-69244, CVE-2026-71281, CVE-2026-71491, CVE-2026-73417, CVE-2026-73502, CVE-2026-73508, 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-2026-81725, CVE-2026-81726, CVE-2026-81727, CVE-2026-82397, CVE-2026-82417, CVE-2026-84292, CVE-2026-84375, CVE-2026-84381, CVE-2026-84382, 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-2026-86332, CVE-2026-87776, CVE-2026-87817, CVE-2026-87819, CVE-2026-88029, CVE-2026-88031, CVE-2026-89425, CVE-2026-91990, CVE-2026-93348, CVE-2026-93599, CVE-2026-93657, CVE-2026-93749, CVE-2026-96749, CVE-2026-96775, CVE-2026-102925, CVE-2026-102930, CVE-2026-102937, CVE-2026-102938, CVE-2026-102990, CVE-2026-104851, CVE-2026-104852, CVE-2026-104861, CVE-2026-104873
References
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:86891 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-14029 (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-2026-102990 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-104851 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-104852 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-104861 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-104873 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-13697 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-15679 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-15789 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18427 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-19534 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-37237 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-49825 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-49855 (opens in a new tab)
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54284 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 Container Release UpdateCriticalVulnerability
- 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 2.7 Container Release UpdateCriticalVulnerability