Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.15% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-92615High confidence
Flightctl: flightctl: package-global go-git https transport mutated per-repo -- cross-tenant tls-config bleed
Red Hat · Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2
6.6MediumCVSS 3.1
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Red Hat Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2 and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Red Hat Product Security: 4 affected or under-investigation product states without a fixed product state in the same current advisory
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative 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.
CVE-2026-92615 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityflightctl: flightctl: Package-global go-git HTTPS transport mutated per-repo -- cross-tenant TLS-config bleed
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- flightctl-agent as a component of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2
- flightctl-selinux as a component of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2
- flightctl.src as a component of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2
- flightctl.src as a component of Red Hat Edge Manager 1
- Summary
- A flaw was found in flightctl. The configureRepoHTTPSClient() function in the device-render worker builds a per-repository tls.Config (which may include InsecureSkipVerify, a custom CA bundle, or tenant-supplied mTLS client certificates) and installs it into go-git's process-global client.Protocols map via gitclient.InstallProtocol("https", ...). Because the worker renders devices for multiple organizations concurrently from a shared goroutine pool, whichever tenant's repository configuration is written last wins for all in-flight git.Clone calls. This race condition can cause one tenant's TLS settings, including InsecureSkipVerify or mTLS client credentials, to leak into another tenant's git operations.
- Remediation
- There is no application-level workaround that fully eliminates this race condition without a code change. The following deployment-level measures reduce exposure in multi-tenant environments: - Avoid mTLS client certificates for git repositories: If tenant Repository resources do not supply client TLS certificates (httpConfig.tls.clientCertificate), the most sensitive data (client private key material) is absent from the global transport and cannot leak. - Avoid skipServerVerification: Do not set httpConfig.skipServerVerification: true on any Repository resource. This prevents a tenant's InsecureSkipVerify=true from propagating to other tenants' clones, which would otherwise allow an on-path attacker to serve malicious configuration.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
A flaw was found in flightctl. The configureRepoHTTPSClient() function in the device-render worker builds a per-repository tls.Config (which may include InsecureSkipVerify, a custom CA bundle, or tenant-supplied mTLS client certificates) and installs it into go-git's process-global client.Protocols map via gitclient.InstallProtocol("https", ...). Because the worker renders devices for multiple organizations concurrently from a shared goroutine pool, whichever tenant's repository configuration is written last wins for all in-flight git.Clone calls. This race condition can cause one tenant's TLS settings, including InsecureSkipVerify or mTLS client credentials, to leak into another tenant's git operations.
What
A flaw was found in flightctl. The configureRepoHTTPSClient() function in the device-render worker builds a per-repository tls.Config (which may include InsecureSkipVerify, a custom CA bundle, or tenant-supplied mTLS client certificates) and installs it into go-git's process-global client.Protocols map via gitclient.InstallProtocol("https", ...). Because the worker renders devices for multiple organizations concurrently from a shared goroutine pool, whichever tenant's repository configuration is written last wins for all in-flight git.Clone calls. This race condition can cause one tenant's TLS settings, including InsecureSkipVerify or mTLS client credentials, to leak into another tenant's git operations.
Why
The product does not lock or does not correctly lock a resource when the product must have exclusive access to the resource.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
A flaw was found in flightctl. The configureRepoHTTPSClient() function in the device-render worker builds a per-repository tls.Config (which may include InsecureSkipVerify, a custom CA bundle, or tenant-supplied mTLS client certificates) and installs it into go-git's process-global client.Protocols map via gitclient.InstallProtocol("https", ...). Because the worker renders devices for multiple organizations concurrently from a shared goroutine pool, whichever tenant's repository configuration is written last wins for all in-flight git.Clone calls. This race condition can cause one tenant's TLS settings, including InsecureSkipVerify or mTLS client credentials, to leak into another tenant's git operations.
Why
The product does not lock or does not correctly lock a resource when the product must have exclusive access to the resource.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated 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 No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.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 None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.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 → Improper Resource Locking → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- High: elevated access is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-413 ↗
CWE-413: Improper Resource Locking. The product does not lock or does not correctly lock a resource when the product must have exclusive access to the resource.
- 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:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:NCommon 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.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRHighPrivileges required: The attacker needs elevated or administrative 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.
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
- flightctl-agent as a component of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2
- flightctl-selinux as a component of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2
- flightctl.src as a component of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2
- flightctl.src as a component of Red Hat Edge Manager 1
- 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
- There is no application-level workaround that fully eliminates this race condition without a code change. The following deployment-level measures reduce exposure in multi-tenant environments: - Avoid mTLS client certificates for git repositories: If tenant Repository resources do not supply client TLS certificates (httpConfig.tls.clientCertificate), the most sensitive data (client private key material) is absent from the global transport and cannot leak. - Avoid skipServerVerification: Do not set httpConfig.skipServerVerification: true on any Repository resource. This prevents a tenant's InsecureSkipVerify=true from propagating to other tenants' clones, which would otherwise allow an on-path attacker to serve malicious configuration.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 16 Sept 2026 · Last source change 17 Sept 2026, 15:48 UTC · CWE-413 · Improper Resource Locking
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-17
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-80802
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
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-80802 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-80802"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.