Skip to main content

Foreman Ansible CVE-2026-92894

| EUVDEUVD-2026-81417 MEDIUM
Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863)
2026-09-17 redhat GHSA-xw4h-j68j-jhc2
4.3
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: redhat
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Authenticate with edit_ansible_variables permission
  2. Exploit
    Enumerate target LookupValue record IDs
  3. Execution
    Send destroy request for out-of-scope override
  4. Impact
    Delete Ansible/Puppet override values cross-scope

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V8 - Authorization Authorization logic validation
MITRE ATT&CK

1 technique across 1 tactic: Privilege Escalation

The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up.

Exploitation Conditions

Requires an authenticated Red Hat Satellite 6 / Foreman account holding the edit_ansible_variables permission, running the foreman_ansible plugin. The core weakness is that the override-values destroy action resolves the LookupValue by ID alone without checking that it belongs to an AnsibleVariable within the caller's permission-filter scope, so the limiting factor is that the attacker must already have variable-edit rights and knowledge/enumeration of target record IDs. Impact is confined to deletion of override values (including Puppet smart-class-parameter overrides) - no read access or code execution. In deployments where all Ansible-variable editors are fully trusted and there are no RBAC scope filters, the practical risk is minimal.

Impact

This is a low-to-moderate authorization/IDOR flaw (CWE-863), not a high-severity issue. The vendor CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N, base 4.3) is internally consistent with the description: exploitation requires an authenticated user who already holds the edit_ansible_variables permission (PR:L), and impact is limited to integrity (I:L) via unauthorized deletion of LookupValue override records - there is no confidentiality (C:N) or availability (A:N) impact and no scope change (S:U). No EPSS score, KEV listing, POC, or SSVC data is provided; per the precision rules, exploitation status is 'no public exploit identified at time of analysis.' All signals point to a genuine but bounded privilege-boundary/permission-filter bypass rather than a widely weaponizable vulnerability: an attacker must first obtain a legitimate Satellite/Foreman account with variable-edit rights, and the payoff is deleting override values (including ones outside their filter scope and Puppet smart-class-parameter overrides) rather than reading data or gaining code execution. This is a real hardening priority for multi-tenant/RBAC-segmented Satellite deployments but should be prioritized below remote-unauth or RCE-class findings.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

In a Red Hat Satellite / Foreman environment with role-based permission filters, a low-privileged operator granted edit_ansible_variables (scoped to only their own organization's Ansible variables) enumerates LookupValue record IDs and issues destroy requests for override values belonging to variables outside their filter scope - or to Puppet smart class parameters they should never touch. No public exploit is identified; the attack is a straightforward authenticated API call against a predictable integer record ID.

This Month Plan within 30 days. Why: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9).
No patch listed yet 0.3% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Sep 17, 2026

Authenticated users who hold the edit_ansible_variables permission in the Foreman foreman_ansible plugin (as shipped in Red Hat Satellite 6) can delete arbitrary Ansible override values by supplying a raw LookupValue record ID to the override-values destroy action, which performs no ownership or scope check. The flaw is an authorization/IDOR weakness rated CVSS 4.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N) with impact limited to integrity loss through deletion - notably, targets can include override values belonging to Ansible variables outside the caller's permission filter and overrides attached to Puppet smart class parameters. No public exploit code exists and there is no evidence of active exploitation (no CISA KEV listing), so practical risk is low-to-moderate and largely depends on how granularly the deployment's RBAC filters are configured.

RemediationAI

No vendor-released patch was identified at time of analysis; the Red Hat advisory (https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-92894) and Bugzilla entry (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2535902) should be monitored for the fixed foreman_ansible package build and the corresponding Satellite 6 erratum, and the plugin package upgraded as soon as that version is published. Until then, the most effective compensating control is to reduce the population of principals holding edit_ansible_variables: audit the corresponding Foreman roles and remove that permission from any role whose members are not fully trusted to modify all Ansible variables, accepting the trade-off that legitimate editors outside a narrow team will lose the ability to manage overrides. Second, where RBAC scope filters are used, verify they are actually enforced elsewhere in the plugin and do not rely on them for this endpoint, since the flaw specifically bypasses them; treat filter-scoped separation of duties as unreliable for override data and add compensating monitoring instead. Third, restrict the management API to trusted networks or source-IP allowlists at the reverse proxy, accepting the operational cost of breaking automation clients that call the API from other segments. Fourth, enable and alert on Foreman audit logging for LookupValue deletion events, especially deletions targeting Puppet smart class parameter overrides, so that abuse is detected even though it cannot be prevented; this generates additional log volume but is the only reliable detection path given the endpoint returns no read data to the attacker. Finally, keep independent backups of parameter and override data, since the impact of exploitation is destructive deletion and recovery may depend on restoring those records.

Affects your stack

Find out whether the stacks and servers you run are on an affected version.

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

The foreman_ansible plugin extends Foreman/Satellite's configuration management model by mapping Ansible roles and variables onto Foreman's existing parameter infrastructure. Override values are stored as LookupValue records, the same model used for smart class parameters and smart variables; an AnsibleVariable is backed by such a record, and overrides for those variables are individual LookupValue rows. The vulnerable destroy action in the Ansible override values API resolves the requested record directly by its numeric ID and proceeds to delete it without verifying that the LookupValue is associated with an AnsibleVariable the caller is entitled to modify. That is a classic CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization) failure - the authorization decision is made on the action rather than on the object, producing an insecure-direct-object-reference pattern. Because Foreman's RBAC uses permission filters to scope which variables an editor may touch, bypassing that filter lets a low-privileged editor act outside their assigned taxonomy/organization/location scope, and even reach overrides owned by Puppet smart class parameters rather than Ansible variables. The attack is purely destructive: the API performs no disclosure of record contents and there is no path to code execution, which is consistent with the assessed C:N/I:L/A:N vector and the network-reachable but permission-gated nature of the endpoint.

Know when Foreman gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (redhat) PRIMARY 4.3 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
vuln.today AI 4.3 MEDIUM

Authenticated API call (PR:L) over the network deletes records outside scope with no read/DoS impact, so C:N/A:N and I:L; no scope change as it stays within the app's authorization model.

3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
4.0 AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Red Hat 4.3 MEDIUM

Primary rating from Vendor (redhat).

CVSS VectorVendor: redhat

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
Low
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

DescriptionCVE.org

A flaw was found in the foreman_ansible plugin's Ansible override values API. The destroy action resolves the target LookupValue record by ID without verifying it belongs to an AnsibleVariable the caller is authorized to edit. An authenticated user with the edit_ansible_variables permission can delete any LookupValue by ID, including override values for Ansible variables outside their permission filter scope and override values belonging to Puppet smart class parameters.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 81% exploitable
Prevalence
Medium
enterprise config-management platform, common in Red Hat shops but not ubiquitous
Data Quality
4 sources
Confidence: Medium

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity MEDIUM
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.3%
Patch available No
Active threat No
Deciding rule
MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Scheduled
Exploitation
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
No
Human Impact· derived
Medium
Technical Impact
Partial

Priority Score

22
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +22
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Affected Products (CPE)CVE.org

cpe:2.3:a:red_hat:red_hat_satellite_6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
CVE-2013-2121 MEDIUM POC
6.0 Jul 31

Eval injection vulnerability in the create method in the Bookmarks controller in Foreman before 1.2.0-RC2 allows remote

CVE-2013-2113 MEDIUM POC
6.0 Jul 31

The create method in app/controllers/users_controller.rb in Foreman before 1.2.0-RC2 allows remote authenticated users w

CVE-2014-0007 HIGH POC
7.5 Jun 20

The Smart-Proxy in Foreman before 1.4.5 and 1.5.x before 1.5.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via

CVE-2018-14643 CRITICAL
9.8 Sep 21

An authentication bypass flaw was found in the smart_proxy_dynflow component used by Foreman. Rated critical severity (C

CVE-2014-0208 MEDIUM POC
5.4 Oct 16

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the search auto-completion functionality in Foreman before 1.4.4 allows remo

CVE-2016-3728 HIGH
8.8 May 20

Eval injection vulnerability in tftp_api.rb in the TFTP module in the Smart-Proxy in Foreman before 1.10.4 and 1.11.x be

CVE-2026-96659 CRITICAL
9.1 Oct 01

Authenticated users with low-level Viewer permissions in Red Hat Satellite 6.19 (and upstream Foreman) can exploit templ

CVE-2023-0462 CRITICAL
9.1 Sep 20

An arbitrary code execution flaw was found in Foreman. Rated critical severity (CVSS 9.1), this vulnerability is remotel

CVE-2023-0118 CRITICAL
9.1 Sep 20

An arbitrary code execution flaw was found in Foreman. Rated critical severity (CVSS 9.1), this vulnerability is remotel

CVE-2014-0192 MEDIUM POC
5.0 May 08

Foreman 1.4.0 before 1.5.0 does not properly restrict access to provisioning template previews, which allows remote atta

CVE-2026-12405 HIGH
8.8 Oct 01

Command injection in the Red Hat Satellite job invocation API (/api/v2/job_invocations), shipped via the rubygem-foreman

CVE-2026-96658 HIGH
8.8 Oct 01

Remote code execution in Foreman's safemode-protected templating engine, shipped in Red Hat Satellite 6.19 for RHEL 9, l

Vendor StatusVendor

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy