CVE-2026-19654VulnerabilityPublished 21 Oct 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: rsyslog security update

Affects Red Hat rsyslogSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-78002

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-19654· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 12 Aug 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10rsyslog	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update Supportrsyslog	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8rsyslog	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Telecommunications Update Servicersyslog	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Update Services for SAP Solutionsrsyslog	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9rsyslog	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated rsyslog packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 that address these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the security update as described in the Red Hat advisory RHSA-2026:87408. Detailed instructions for applying the update are available at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No other mitigation or workaround is indicated in the advisory.

Description

Two security vulnerabilities have been identified in the rsyslog packages used in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8. The first is a configuration-dependent issue in the optional imptcp input module that can allow an unauthenticated remote peer to crash the rsyslog daemon (CVE-2026-19654). The second is a denial of service vulnerability caused by a heap buffer overflow in the RainerScript replace() function (CVE-2026-78002). These issues can lead to denial of service conditions by crashing the rsyslog service.

Impact

Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities can cause the rsyslog daemon to crash, resulting in denial of service. The first vulnerability allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to crash the service via the imptcp input module. The second vulnerability is a heap buffer overflow in a scripting function that can also lead to denial of service. There is no indication of privilege escalation or code execution from the provided data.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-131Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.
Implementation
When allocating a buffer for the purpose of transforming, converting, or encoding an input, allocate enough memory to handle the largest possible encoding. For example, in a routine that converts "&" characters to "&" for HTML entity encoding, the output buffer needs to be at least 5 times as large as the input…
Implementation
Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles…
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Oct 2026, 16:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125, CWE-131

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats