CVE-2026-2377: Mirror-registry: quay: quay: server-side request forgery via log export functionality
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 26/100)
- 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: 0.40% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet 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
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay and mirror registry for Red Hat OpenShift. The log export feature in these products allows an authenticated user to specify an arbitrary callback URL. A backend process then makes server-side HTTP requests to this provided URL. This vulnerability, known as Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), could allow an attacker to send requests from the application's internal network, potentially leading to the disclosure of sensitive information.
- Published
- Apr 8, 2026
- Updated
- Sep 10, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.4% · 34th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-918
Report tools
Action score
26
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 26 / 40 · 6.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.4%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · redhat
- 6.5
- 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
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 helpAffected 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 | mirror registry for red hat openshift | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:mirror_registry_for_red_hat_openshift |
| redhat | quay | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:quay |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- redhat mirror registry for red hat openshiftall versions
- redhat mirror registry for red hat openshift2.0
- redhat quay3.0.0
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 mirror registry for Red Hat OpenShift
- all versionsaffected
Red Hat mirror registry for Red Hat OpenShift 2
- all versionsaffected
Red Hat Red Hat Quay 3.10
- 1779822261 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat Quay 3.12
- 1779811412 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat Quay 3.14
- 1779689392 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat Quay 3.15
- 1780891395 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat Quay 3.16
- 1779204086 and laternot affected · rpm
Red Hat Red Hat Quay 3.9
- 1779811473 and laternot affected · rpm
Same product
redhat: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-32590Mirror-registry: remote code execution using pickle deserialization35Monitor
- CVE-2026-32589Mirror-registry: quay: insecure direct object reference in blobupload29Monitor
- CVE-2026-32591Mirror-registry: quay: server-side request forgery in proxy cache upstream registry configuration22Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2025-14243Apr 8, 2026 · Mirror-registry: openshift mirror registry: user enumeration via authentication error messages21Monitor
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.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
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 researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
- CVE-2026-325910 days apartMirror-registry: quay: server-side request forgery in proxy cache upstream registry configuration22Monitor
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet 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
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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
Show all references (8 more)Show less
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:21017
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:22629
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:22840
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:23361
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:24853
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-2377
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2439201
- security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-2377.json
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.