BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-76648High confidence

Automation-controller: automation-controller-container: aap controller: copyapiview.post() missing read authorization check enables job template secret recovery

Red Hat · Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7

Official source article: Red Hat RHSA-2026:71177 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.

8.5HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityHighOperational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • EPSS is 0.24% 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 Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 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: Within 30 daysRemediation target: Within 180 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-2026-76648 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityautomation-controller: automation-controller-container: AAP Controller: CopyAPIView.post() missing read authorization check enables Job Template secret recovery
1 known affected

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

  • automation-controller.src as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
Summary
CopyAPIView (awx/awx/api/generics.py:873) sets permission_classes = (IsAuthenticated,), so DRF's get_object() performs no object-level RBAC. The get() handler (lines 988–991) explicitly guards with request.user.can_access(obj._class_, 'read', obj) — but post() (lines 1001–1010) does not. POST only checks: can_access(model, 'add', create_kwargs_check) can_access(model, 'copy_related', obj) For JobTemplate, can_add (awx/awx/main/access.py:1465–1520) gates on inventory.use_role + project.use_role + execution_environment.read_role — resource-level roles that do not imply read on the source JT — and can_copy_related (1522–1534) checks only credentials.use_role. None of these imply the caller can read the source JT.
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://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_ansible_automation_platform/2.7#Upgrade
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-2026-85533

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

CopyAPIView (awx/awx/api/generics.py:873) sets permission_classes = (IsAuthenticated,), so DRF's get_object() performs no object-level RBAC. The get() handler (lines 988–991) explicitly guards with request.user.can_access(obj._class_, 'read', obj) — but post() (lines 1001–1010) does not. POST only checks: can_access(model, 'add', create_kwargs_check) can_access(model, 'copy_related', obj) For JobTemplate, can_add (awx/awx/main/access.py:1465–1520) gates on inventory.use_role + project.use_role + execution_environment.read_role — resource-level roles that do not imply read on the source JT — and can_copy_related (1522–1534) checks only credentials.use_role. None of these imply the caller can read the source JT.

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
8.5 · CVSS 3.1
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

CopyAPIView (awx/awx/api/generics.py:873) sets permission_classes = (IsAuthenticated,), so DRF's get_object() performs no object-level RBAC. The get() handler (lines 988–991) explicitly guards with request.user.can_access(obj._class_, 'read', obj) — but post() (lines 1001–1010) does not. POST only checks: can_access(model, 'add', create_kwargs_check) can_access(model, 'copy_related', obj) For JobTemplate, can_add (awx/awx/main/access.py:1465–1520) gates on inventory.use_role + project.use_role + execution_environment.read_role — resource-level roles that do not imply read on the source JT — and can_copy_related (1522–1534) checks only credentials.use_role. None of these imply the caller can read the source JT.

What

CopyAPIView (awx/awx/api/generics.py:873) sets permission_classes = (IsAuthenticated,), so DRF's get_object() performs no object-level RBAC. The get() handler (lines 988–991) explicitly guards with request.user.can_access(obj._class_, 'read', obj) — but post() (lines 1001–1010) does not. POST only checks: can_access(model, 'add', create_kwargs_check) can_access(model, 'copy_related', obj) For JobTemplate, can_add (awx/awx/main/access.py:1465–1520) gates on inventory.use_role + project.use_role + execution_environment.read_role — resource-level roles that do not imply read on the source JT — and can_copy_related (1522–1534) checks only credentials.use_role. None of these imply the caller can read the source JT.

Why

The application reaches a protected operation without first confirming that the requester is authorised.

How

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

What

CopyAPIView (awx/awx/api/generics.py:873) sets permission_classes = (IsAuthenticated,), so DRF's get_object() performs no object-level RBAC. The get() handler (lines 988–991) explicitly guards with request.user.can_access(obj._class_, 'read', obj) — but post() (lines 1001–1010) does not. POST only checks: can_access(model, 'add', create_kwargs_check) can_access(model, 'copy_related', obj) For JobTemplate, can_add (awx/awx/main/access.py:1465–1520) gates on inventory.use_role + project.use_role + execution_environment.read_role — resource-level roles that do not imply read on the source JT — and can_copy_related (1522–1534) checks only credentials.use_role. None of these imply the caller can read the source JT.

Why

The application reaches a protected operation without first confirming that the requester is authorised.

How

An attacker operating through a network path 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.
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 → Missing Authorization → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
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-862 ↗

CWE-862: Missing Authorization. The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

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:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/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.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.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
Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
NetworkCWE-862
A

Official authority intelligence

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

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-85533Official EUVD mapping

CopyAPIView (awx/awx/api/generics.py:873) sets permission_classes = (IsAuthenticated,), so DRF's get_object() performs no object-level RBAC. The get() handler (lines 988–991) explicitly guards with request.user.can_access(obj._class_, 'read', obj) — but post() (lines 1001–1010) does not. POST only checks: can_access(model, 'add', create_kwargs_check) can_access(model, 'copy_related', obj) For JobTemplate, can_add (awx/awx/main/access.py:1465–1520) gates on inventory.use_role + project.use_role + execution_environment.read_role — resource-level roles that do not imply read on the source JT — and can_copy_related (1522–1534) checks only credentials.use_role. None of these imply the caller can read the source JT.

Official EUVD record ↗
BSI · German · WID-SEC-2026-3555Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform (automation-controller): Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform ausnutzen, um seine Privilegien zu erhöhen, beliebigen Code auszuführen, Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen und einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand herbeizuführen.

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
automation-controller.src as a component of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2
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://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_ansible_automation_platform/2.7#Upgrade
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 23 Sept 2026 · Last source change 26 Sept 2026, 22:51 UTC · CWE-862 · Missing Authorization

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 2026-09-24
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-85533
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-2026:71177.
    Before
    remediation: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:71177 · vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:71177
    After
    remediation: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:71177
    CNA ↗
  2. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added remediation: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:71177; added vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:71177.
    Before
    no authoritative guidance recorded
    After
    remediation: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:71177 · vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2026:71177
    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 Ansible Automation Platform 2.7: 1789580684 < *
    CNA ↗
  4. Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.
    Before
    Awaiting fix
    After
    Patch available
    access.redhat.com ↗
  5. ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-85533 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-85533"}
    ENISA EUVD ↗
  6. Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
    CNA ↗
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-2026-85533↗Vendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security↗CVE authority or vendor reference · Red Hat RHSA-2026:71177↗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-2026-76648 · cve.blacktree.nl