CVE-2026-57220: RabbitMQ: Stream listener does not enforce configured frame-size limit during authentication, permitting unauth'd mem-exhaust DoS
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 30/100)
- 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: 0.54% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to CISA the attack is automatable: targets can be found by mass scanning.
- Fixed version: rabbitmq rabbitmq-server 4.2.6; azl3 rabbitmq-server 3.13.7-6 on Azure Linux 3.0 3.13.7-7.
- Mentioned 1 time in Turkish national cyber security advisories (siberguvenlik.gov.tr).
Low priority for now. Upgrade to rabbitmq rabbitmq-server 4.2.6; azl3 rabbitmq-server 3.13.7-6 on Azure Linux 3.0 3.13.7-7 or later.
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
RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to 4.2.6, the RabbitMQ stream listener does not enforce the configured stream frame-size limit while assembling frames during authentication and before Tune negotiation, allowing an unauthenticated remote client to declare oversized frame lengths and consume broker memory in rabbit_stream_core. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.6.
- Published
- Jul 10, 2026
- Updated
- Oct 25, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.5% · 46th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-770
Report tools
Action score
30
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 30 / 40 · 7.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.5%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 7.5
- 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
- A fix has been released
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 |
|---|---|---|
| broadcom | rabbitmq server | cpe:2.3:a:broadcom:rabbitmq_server |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- broadcom rabbitmq server4.2.0 and later · before 4.2.6
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
rabbitmq rabbitmq-server
- >= 4.2.0, < 4.2.6affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| openSUSE:Leap 16.0 | rabbitmq-server | before 4.1.5-160000.2.1 | 4.1.5-160000.2.1 |
| Red Hat:hummingbird:1 | rabbitmq-server4.2 | before 0:4.2.8-1.hum1 | 0:4.2.8-1.hum1 |
| Red Hat:hummingbird:1 | rabbitmq-server4.3 | before 0:4.3.2-1.hum1 | 0:4.3.2-1.hum1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0 | rabbitmq-server | before 4.1.5-160000.2.1 | 4.1.5-160000.2.1 |
Same product
broadcom: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-57216RabbitMQ: AMQP 1.0, AMQP 0-9-1, Stream Protocol loopback enforcement can lead to remote guest sessions due to listener-address loopback checks40Plan
- CVE-2026-57211RabbitMQ: UNC SSRF affecting the management UI on Windows40Plan
- CVE-2016-9877An issue was discovered in Pivotal RabbitMQ 3.x before 3.5.8 and 3.6.x before 3.6.6 and RabbitMQ for PCF 1.5.x before 1.5.20, 1.6.x before 139Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-57218Jul 10, 2026 · RabbitMQ: AMQP 0-9-1 in combination with OAuth 2: consumer persistence can lead to post-revocation message disclosure19Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-57219Jul 10, 2026 · RabbitMQ: Unauthenticated disclosure of OAuth client credentials via an HTTP API endpoint with certain less common OAuth 2 configurations35Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-57221Jul 10, 2026 · RabbitMQ: Passive queue/exchange declaration bypasses authorization checks, leaking queue metadata to unprivileged users21Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| rabbitmq rabbitmq-server | 4.2.6 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| azl3 rabbitmq-server 3.13.7-6 on Azure Linux 3.0 | 3.13.7-7 · CBL-Mariner Releases | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| opensuse:rabbitmq-server | 4.1.5-160000.2.1 · openSUSE:Leap 16.0 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:rabbitmq-server4.2 | 0:4.2.8-1.hum1 · Red Hat:hummingbird:1 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:rabbitmq-server4.3 | 0:4.3.2-1.hum1 · Red Hat:hummingbird:1 | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:rabbitmq-server | 4.1.5-160000.2.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0 | Package registry (OSV) |
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.
Credits
All researchersFinders, 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-2026-6607975 days apartRabbitMQ: Pre-auth AMQP 1.0 array32 zero-width element DoS32Monitor
- CVE-2026-572120 days apartRabbitMQ management HTTP API accepts request bodies larger than configured max_http_body_size28Monitor
- CVE-2026-6723575 days apartRabbitMQ: AMQP 0-9-1 body assembly never validates accumulated size28Monitor
- CVE-2026-6722577 days apartRabbitMQ: Stream-protocol frame length never validated against frame_max25Monitor
- CVE-2026-6723077 days apartRabbitMQ: Web-STOMP unbounded pre-auth accumulation25Monitor
- CVE-2026-6721975 days apartRabbitMQ: Consistent-hash exchange unbounded weight24Monitor
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).
National notice (Türkiye Cybersecurity Directorate / USOM)
Official security notices citing this record; remediation advice is on the agency's page.
- TR-26-0532 · Jul 13, 2026(RabbitMQ Güvenlik Zafiyeti)
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-770 · Allocation of Resources Without Limits or ThrottlingCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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)
- FloodingCAPEC-125likelihood: High · Medium
- Excessive AllocationCAPEC-130likelihood: Medium · Medium
- XML Ping of the DeathCAPEC-147likelihood: Low · Medium
- Exponential Data ExpansionCAPEC-197likelihood: High · Medium
- Serialized Data Parameter BlowupCAPEC-229likelihood: High · High
- Serialized Data with Nested PayloadsCAPEC-230likelihood: Medium · High
- Oversized Serialized Data PayloadsCAPEC-231likelihood: Medium · High
- HTTP DoSCAPEC-469Low
ATT&CK techniques
- Network Denial of Service:Direct Network FloodT1498.001
- Network Denial of Service:Reflection AmplificationT1498.002
- Endpoint Denial of ServiceT1499
- Endpoint Denial of Service: OS Exhaustion FloodT1499.001
- Endpoint Denial of Service:Service Exhaustion FloodT1499.002
- Endpoint Denial of Service:Application Exhaustion FloodT1499.003
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (4 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.