BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-46380High confidence

compliance-trestle Vulnerable to SSRF in Remote Fetching Subsystem

oscal-compass · compliance-trestle

Official source article: GitHub GHSA-W76H-Q7C6-JPJP ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.

6.7MediumCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix

Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
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.
  • A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
  • Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
  • EPSS is 0.14% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
  • Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
  • Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs oscal-compass compliance-trestle and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
  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.

Cross-source reconciliation

Remediation availability differs by product scope

Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Open-source package ranges2 source-attributed ranges

These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.

Ecosystem and packageAffected rangeFirst fixed versionEvidence
pipcompliance-trestle>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.34.0.3GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 2 Aug 2026
pipcompliance-trestle< 3.12.23.12.2GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 2 Aug 2026
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-2026-46380 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitycompliance-trestle: compliance-trestle: Server-Side Request Forgery via unvalidated URL in remote fetching subsystem
1 known affected

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

  • compliance/openshift-compliance-content-rhel8 as a component of File Integrity Operator
Summary
A flaw was found in compliance-trestle, a tooling platform for managing compliance as code. The HTTPSFetcher._do_fetch() method, responsible for remote fetching, passes a user-supplied URL directly to the requests.get() function without proper validation. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to perform Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), potentially targeting internal services or cloud metadata endpoints to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or internal resources.
Remediation
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
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-2026-58712

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

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
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionPatch only the product branches with a verified fix

Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
01

What, why and how

compliance-trestle is a tooling platform for managing compliance as code. Prior to versions 3.12.2 and 4.0.3, the HTTPSFetcher._do_fetch() method passes a user-supplied URL directly to requests.get() without validation. This allows an attacker to perform Server-Side Request Forgery, targeting internal services or cloud metadata endpoints. Versions 3.12.2 and 4.0.3 fix the issue.

What

compliance-trestle is a tooling platform for managing compliance as code. Prior to versions 3.12.2 and 4.0.3, the HTTPSFetcher._do_fetch() method passes a user-supplied URL directly to requests.get() without validation. This allows an attacker to perform Server-Side Request Forgery, targeting internal services or cloud metadata endpoints. Versions 3.12.2 and 4.0.3 fix the issue.

Why

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

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

compliance-trestle is a tooling platform for managing compliance as code. Prior to versions 3.12.2 and 4.0.3, the HTTPSFetcher._do_fetch() method passes a user-supplied URL directly to requests.get() without validation. This allows an attacker to perform Server-Side Request Forgery, targeting internal services or cloud metadata endpoints. Versions 3.12.2 and 4.0.3 fix the issue.

Why

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

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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.
Reference recorded

CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.

Likely attack path
local access → Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
Required interaction required
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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

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

AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
CWE-918Public exploit reference
A

Official authority intelligence

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

Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20260819Security Bulletin 19 Aug 2026

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 19 Aug 2026, published on 19 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.
Fix availability varies by product
Affected
compliance/openshift-compliance-content-rhel8 as a component of File Integrity Operator
Fixed
No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Action
Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
Workaround
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 14 Aug 2026 · Last source change 17 Aug 2026, 19:38 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 2026-08-23
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-58712
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled

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 from remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-46380 to remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-46380.
    Before
    remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-46380
    After
    remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-46380
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  2. Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Mitigation available.
    Before
    Awaiting fix
    After
    Mitigation available
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  3. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    >= 4.0.0, < 4.0.3; < 3.12.2 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
    After
    compliance-trestle: >= 4.0.0, < 4.0.3, < 3.12.2 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
    CNA ↗
  4. Public exploit evidencePublic exploit evidence changed from No public exploit to Public exploit reference.
    Before
    No public exploit
    After
    Public exploit reference
    CVE.org ↗
  5. Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
    CNA ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-58712↗Vendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security↗CISA Vulnrichment SSVC evidence↗CVE authority or vendor reference · GitHub GHSA-W76H-Q7C6-JPJP↗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-2026-46380 · cve.blacktree.nl