CVE-2026-29146VulnerabilityPublished 13 Jul 2026Updated 5 Nov 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: tomcat security, bug fix, and enhancement update

Affects Red Hat tomcat security,Source GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-34486

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-29146· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in Red Hat package updates : patch Red Hat tomcat soon.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 21:06 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 9.0.116, 8.5.101, 7.0.110

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Apr 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 5 Nov 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 org.apache.tomcat/tomcat to 9.0.116, 8.5.101 or 7.0.110.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Tomcat	Affected >=11.0.0-M1 <=11.0.18 >=10.0.0-M1 <=10.1.52 >=9.0.13 <=9.0.115 >=8.5.38 <=8.5.100 >=7.0.100 <=7.0.109	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.apache.tomcat/tomcat`pkg:maven/org.apache.tomcat/tomcat`Other threats	Affected =9.0.13 >=9.0.13 <9.0.116 =8.5.38 >=8.5.38 <8.5.101 =7.0.100 >=7.0.100 <7.0.110	Fixed in 9.0.116 8.5.101 7.0.110

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated Tomcat packages addressing these vulnerabilities as part of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support update. Users should apply the provided update following Red Hat's official guidance at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258 to remediate these issues. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official patch. The advisory confirms the availability of a fix.

Description

Red Hat has issued a security advisory for Apache Tomcat addressing two vulnerabilities: an information disclosure via a Padding Oracle vulnerability in EncryptInterceptor (CVE-2026-29146) and missing encryption of sensitive data due to an EncryptInterceptor bypass (CVE-2026-34486). These issues affect Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support versions. The advisory includes bug fixes and enhancements, such as the removal of the tomcat clustering JAR from RPM builds. The update is rated as important by Red Hat Product Security.

Impact

The vulnerabilities allow information disclosure through a Padding Oracle attack and bypass of encryption mechanisms, potentially exposing sensitive data processed by the EncryptInterceptor in Apache Tomcat. Red Hat rates the security impact as important, indicating a high severity level but no confirmed exploitation in the wild is reported. The impact is limited to affected versions of Apache Tomcat running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support.

CWE-1240Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
Requirements
Require compliance with the strongest-available recommendations from trusted parties, and require that compliance must be kept up-to-date, since recommendations evolve over time. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the architecture/design uses the strongest-available primitives and algorithms from trusted parties. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cryptanalysis (opens in a new tab)
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
Secure Design Principles (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 5 Nov 2026, 21:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1240, CWE-807

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats