Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 1.41% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceRed Hat · Red Hat Satellite 6.16 for RHEL 8
Official source article: Red Hat RHSA-2026:5968 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch availableA flaw was found in Foreman. A remote attacker could exploit a command injection vulnerability in Foreman's WebSocket proxy implementation. This vulnerability arises from the system's use of unsanitized hostname values from compute resource providers when constructing shell commands. By operating a malicious compute resource server, an attacker could achieve remote code execution on the Foreman server when a user accesses VM VNC console functionality. This could lead to the compromise of sensitive credentials and the entire managed infrastructure.
A flaw was found in Foreman. A remote attacker could exploit a command injection vulnerability in Foreman's WebSocket proxy implementation. This vulnerability arises from the system's use of unsanitized hostname values from compute resource providers when constructing shell commands. By operating a malicious compute resource server, an attacker could achieve remote code execution on the Foreman server when a user accesses VM VNC console functionality. This could lead to the compromise of sensitive credentials and the entire managed infrastructure.
Untrusted input is incorporated into an operating-system command without safe parameter handling.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
A flaw was found in Foreman. A remote attacker could exploit a command injection vulnerability in Foreman's WebSocket proxy implementation. This vulnerability arises from the system's use of unsanitized hostname values from compute resource providers when constructing shell commands. By operating a malicious compute resource server, an attacker could achieve remote code execution on the Foreman server when a user accesses VM VNC console functionality. This could lead to the compromise of sensitive credentials and the entire managed infrastructure.
Untrusted input is incorporated into an operating-system command without safe parameter handling.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'). The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 26 Mar 2026 · Last source change 15 Jul 2026, 01:20 UTC · CWE-78 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Missing structured fields: affected versions. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.