CVE-2026-75899VulnerabilityPublished 1 Oct 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Technical preview of the satellite/iop-vulnerability-frontend-rhel9 container image

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 10:10 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · CVSS not yet scored by NVD

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Oct 2026
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

AI-suggested

Currently, no mitigation or patch is available that meets Red Hat's criteria for ease of deployment, applicability, or stability. Users should monitor Red Hat advisories for updates. Red Hat recommends consulting their documentation for Red Hat Satellite and Lightspeed configurations. Customers with a Technical Account Manager (TAM) can review this CVE directly with their TAM for tailored guidance. Until a fix is available, restricting processing of untrusted URIs or applying network-level controls may reduce risk but are not official mitigations.

Description

CVE-2026-75899 is a vulnerability in the fast-uri Node.js library used by Red Hat products such as Red Hat Satellite's Lightspeed component. The flaw involves double decoding of percent escapes in hostnames during URI parsing, which can allow an attacker to manipulate URIs to redirect requests to unintended network destinations, including internal services. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) and bypass of host-based security policies. No fix is currently available that meets Red Hat's criteria for deployment and stability. The vulnerability is rated as high severity by Red Hat.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker to perform Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) by manipulating URI hostnames through double percent-decoding, potentially redirecting internal application requests to unauthorized network destinations such as loopback addresses. This can bypass host-based security policies and expose internal services to attackers. The integrity of the affected systems is at high risk due to unauthorized request redirection. Confidentiality and availability impacts are not indicated. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time.

CWE-140Improper Neutralization of Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes delimiters.
Implementation · Input Validation
Developers should anticipate that delimiters will be injected/removed/manipulated 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 · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
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
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Oct 2026, 07:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-140, CWE-1289

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats