NVD / CVE Program· CNA redhat

CVE-2026-1784: Ose-cluster-ingress-operator: remote code execution through haproxy configuration injection

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 35/100)

The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.19% (FIRST EPSS).
Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.

Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.

Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

The Route OpenShift resource allows to define routes to make pods reachable at a subdomain through HAProxy. It was found that the checks performed on the spec.path YAML stanza in a Route document was insufficient and could allow a controlled injection of the HAProxy configuration.

HighCVSS 8.8 · v3.1—No exploit No fix recorded

Published: Jun 2, 2026
Updated: Oct 1, 2026
EPSS: 0.1% · 9th percentile
CWE: CWE-15

Report tools

JSON

Action score

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS: 35 / 40 · 8.8 / 10
CISA KEV: 0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS: 0 / 30 · 0.1%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical impact: total

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD: —
CNA · redhat: 8.8; NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Get told when this record changes

Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
No public exploit code on record
No fixed version yet

If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

Noroxi analysis

What does it mean in your environment?

The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.

We use this product, ask for help

Affected systems

Is your version affected?

Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.

Vendor	Product	CPE
redhat	openshift container platform	cpe:2.3:a:redhat:openshift_container_platform

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

redhat openshift container platform4.0

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (redhat). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.12
- 1789911929 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13
- 1781123014 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.14
- 1781870101 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.15
- 1781928857 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16
- 1780962617 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.18
- 1780988280 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.19
- 1780043338 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.20
- 1780990977 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.21
- 1780444348 and laternot affected · rpm

Same product

redhat: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

CVE-2017-7481Ansible before versions 2.3.1.0 and 2.4.0.0 fails to properly mark lookup-plugin results as unsafe.
40Plan
CVE-2018-1085openshift-ansible before versions 3.9.23, 3.7.46 deploys a misconfigured etcd file that causes the SSL client certificate authentication to
40Plan
CVE-2020-27836A flaw was found in cluster-ingress-operator.
39Monitor

Published before and after this one in the same product

← EarlierCVE-2026-42965May 29, 2026 · Openshift/router: openshift/router: cloud metadata ssrf via fqdn-typed endpointslice bypasses destination validation
26Monitor
← EarlierCVE-2026-10533Jun 1, 2026 · Openshift: openshift: non-admin user can bypass resourcequota and flood etcd with events causing cluster-wide api degradation
20Monitor
Later →CVE-2026-12725Jun 22, 2026 · Dnsmasq: dnsmasq: heap buffer overflow in log_query() when logging unsupported ds/dnskey replies
23Monitor

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.

Exploit status

No known public exploit

No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.

Research context

For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.

Timeline

From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.

No dated events beyond publication.

No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

No commit or PR link among the references.

Credits

All researchers

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

No credits in the CNA record.

Variant candidates

Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.

CVE-2025-8283309 days apartNetavark: podman: netavark may resolve hostnames to unexpected hosts
14Monitor

Chain candidates

An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.

CVE-2026-465794 days apartOpenshift/router: openshift/router: mtls client certificate spoofing via unstripped x-ssl-client headers on http frontend
30Monitor

Bug bounty scope

No known public program.

Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).

Technical details

Attack conditions

Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
A low-privileged account is enough.
No user action is required.
No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality: high · data can be read
Integrity: high · data or configuration can be modified
Availability: high · the service can be disrupted

Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).

Attack vector: Local
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality impact: High
Integrity impact: High
Availability impact: High

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-15 · External Control of System or Configuration Setting

CVSS vector

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

nvd-secondary

Attack context

MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.

Attack patterns (CAPEC)

ATT&CK techniques

Change log

No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.

References

access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:23241

Show all references (11 more)

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records