CVE-2026-92824
MEDIUMA flaw was found in libmodulemd. In the module stream v2 rpm-map emission path, an inner loop incorrectly uses the count of digest algorithms as its bound instead of the number of checksums in the current digest table. Crafted modulemd v2 metadata with multiple digest types can trigger an...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
What systems are affected?
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
No patch available
Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-92824?
A flaw was found in libmodulemd. In the module stream v2 rpm-map emission path, an inner loop incorrectly uses the count of digest algorithms as its bound instead of the number of checksums in the current digest table. Crafted modulemd v2 metadata with multiple digest types can trigger an out-of-bounds read during YAML serialization, typically causing a crash and resulting in a denial of service.
Is CVE-2026-92824 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-92824 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-92824?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-92824?
CVE-2026-92824 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.2 (MEDIUM).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
A flaw was found in libmodulemd. In the module stream v2 rpm-map emission path, an inner loop incorrectly uses the count of digest algorithms as its bound instead of the number of checksums in the current digest table. Crafted modulemd v2 metadata with multiple digest types can trigger an out-of-bounds read during YAML serialization, typically causing a crash and resulting in a denial of service.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-125 — Out-of-bounds Read: The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
- [Implementation] Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylis
- [Architecture and Design] Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HReferences
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-92824vdb-entryx_refsource_REDHAT
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgiissue-trackingx_refsource_REDHAT
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-j65x-29mg-x4cj
- github.com/fedora-modularity/libmodulemd/pull/643
Timeline
Related Vulnerabilities
CVE-2025-1537910.0MLflow: RCE via unsanitized model dependency specs
Same package: mlflowCVE-2023-376510.0MLflow: path traversal allows arbitrary file read
Same package: mlflowCVE-2023-27809.8MLflow: path traversal allows arbitrary file read/write
Same package: mlflowCVE-2023-11779.8MLflow: path traversal allows arbitrary file read/write
Same package: mlflowCVE-2026-26359.8mlflow: security flaw enables exploitation
Same package: mlflow