BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-18369High confidence

Dogtag-pki: pki-core: redhat-pki: pki: acme http-01 validation ssrf via ip literal identifiers and unvalidated redirects

Red Hat · Red Hat Certificate System 10.4 EUS for RHEL-8

Official source article: Red Hat RHSA-2026:67110 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.

5.8MediumCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Scheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Patch available
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityMediumOperational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
  • EPSS is 0.22% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
  • Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
  • Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs Red Hat Red Hat Certificate System 10.4 EUS for RHEL-8 and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: As exposure requiresRemediation target: Within 365 days

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Direct vendor intelligence

Authoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories

Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.

1 current
CVE-2026-18369 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitydogtag-pki: pki-core: redhat-pki: pki: ACME HTTP-01 validation SSRF via IP literal identifiers and unvalidated redirects
89 known affected

The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.

  • redhat-pki:10/redhat-pki.src as a component of Red Hat Certificate System 10
  • redhat-pki.src as a component of Red Hat Certificate System 11
  • pki-core.src as a component of Red Hat Certificate System 9
  • redhat-pki.src as a component of Red Hat Certificate System 9
  • dogtag-pki.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
  • idm-pki-acme as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
  • idm-pki-base as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
  • idm-pki-ca as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
  • idm-pki-java as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
  • idm-pki-kra as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
  • idm-pki-server as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
  • idm-pki-tools as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
Summary
A flaw was found in Dogtag PKI's ACME responder where the HTTP-01 challenge validator accepts IP address literals as dns identifiers and follows HTTP redirects without validating that the target is a public address. An unauthenticated ACME account holder can exploit this to perform server-side request forgery (SSRF), making the Dogtag server send HTTP GET requests to internal network services. With the InMemory database backend, the response body of internal targets is disclosed to the attacker through the ACME challenge error.
Remediation
Before applying this update, make sure all previously released errata relevant to your system have been applied. For details on how to apply this update, refer to: https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2026-51078

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

A flaw was found in Dogtag PKI's ACME responder where the HTTP-01 challenge validator accepts IP address literals as dns identifiers and follows HTTP redirects without validating that the target is a public address. An unauthenticated ACME account holder can exploit this to perform server-side request forgery (SSRF), making the Dogtag server send HTTP GET requests to internal network services. With the InMemory database backend, the response body of internal targets is disclosed to the attacker through the ACME challenge error.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
5.8 · CVSS 3.1
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionScheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

A flaw was found in Dogtag PKI's ACME responder where the HTTP-01 challenge validator accepts IP address literals as dns identifiers and follows HTTP redirects without validating that the target is a public address. An unauthenticated ACME account holder can exploit this to perform server-side request forgery (SSRF), making the Dogtag server send HTTP GET requests to internal network services. With the InMemory database backend, the response body of internal targets is disclosed to the attacker through the ACME challenge error.

What

A flaw was found in Dogtag PKI's ACME responder where the HTTP-01 challenge validator accepts IP address literals as dns identifiers and follows HTTP redirects without validating that the target is a public address. An unauthenticated ACME account holder can exploit this to perform server-side request forgery (SSRF), making the Dogtag server send HTTP GET requests to internal network services. With the InMemory database backend, the response body of internal targets is disclosed to the attacker through the ACME challenge error.

Why

The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

A flaw was found in Dogtag PKI's ACME responder where the HTTP-01 challenge validator accepts IP address literals as dns identifiers and follows HTTP redirects without validating that the target is a public address. An unauthenticated ACME account holder can exploit this to perform server-side request forgery (SSRF), making the Dogtag server send HTTP GET requests to internal network services. With the InMemory database backend, the response body of internal targets is disclosed to the attacker through the ACME challenge error.

Why

The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
a network path → Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-918 ↗

CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkUnauthenticatedCWE-918
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-51078Official EUVD mapping

A flaw was found in Dogtag PKI's ACME responder where the HTTP-01 challenge validator accepts IP address literals as dns identifiers and follows HTTP redirects without validating that the target is a public address. An unauthenticated ACME account holder can exploit this to perform server-side request forgery (SSRF), making the Dogtag server send HTTP GET requests to internal network services. With the InMemory database backend, the response body of internal targets is disclosed to the attacker through the ACME challenge error.

Official EUVD record ↗
BSI · German · WID-SEC-2026-3337Red Hat Certificate System for RHEL (Dogtag PKI): Schwachstelle ermöglicht Offenlegung von Informationen

Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann eine Schwachstelle in Red Hat Certificate System und Red Hat Enterprise Linux ausnutzen, um Informationen offenzulegen.

Official advisory ↗
Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20260805Security Bulletin 5 Aug 2026

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 5 Aug 2026, published on 5 August 2026. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

Official advisory ↗
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Patch available
Affected
Fixed
Action
Before applying this update, make sure all previously released errata relevant to your system have been applied. For details on how to apply this update, refer to: https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 30 Jul 2026 · Last source change 14 Sept 2026, 05:28 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-51078
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗
  1. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: removed vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:67110.
    Before
    remediation: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:67110 · vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:67110
    After
    remediation: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:67110
    CNA ↗
  2. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added remediation: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:67110; added vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:67110.
    Before
    no authoritative guidance recorded
    After
    remediation: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:67110 · vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:67110
    access.redhat.com ↗
  3. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    See the vendor and CVE records for the affected range. · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
    After
    See the vendor and CVE records for the affected range. · Fixed: Red Hat Certificate System 10.4 EUS for RHEL-8: 8060020260814202723.07fb4edf < *
    CNA ↗
  4. Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.
    Before
    Awaiting fix
    After
    Patch available
    access.redhat.com ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-51078↗Vendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security↗CVE authority or vendor reference · Red Hat RHSA-2026:67110↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2026-18369 · cve.blacktree.nl