CVE-2026-12382
Public on
Last Modified:
Description
A flaw was found in the AAP Gateway Envoy proxy configuration. The non-mTLS route to EDA event streams does not remove the Subject HTTP header from client requests, despite the source code defining requestHeadersToRemove for this header. An unauthenticated remote attacker can inject a spoofed Subject header matching a legitimate client certificate DN to bypass mTLS authentication and inject arbitrary events into protected EDA event streams.
Statement
This flaw affects AAP deployments that use mTLS-protected EDA external event streams. The Gateway component introduced in AAP 2.5 contains the Envoy proxy routing configuration. AAP 2.4 uses a different architecture (no Gateway/Envoy) and is not affected by this specific flaw, though the EDA-side trust-of-Subject-header issue (tracked separately) may still apply to AAP 2.4 deployments using mTLS with a different proxy configuration.
Mitigation
The following practices would help for avoiding exposure and mitigate this flaw:
- Restrict network access to the non-mTLS EDA event stream route (/eda-event-streams/) at the firewall or load balancer level, allowing only trusted internal sources.
- If mTLS-protected event streams are in use, ensure that only the /mtls/eda-event-streams/ route is accessible from untrusted networks.
- Monitor EDA event stream activity for unexpected events_received counter increases that may indicate unauthorized event injection.
- Review Envoy proxy logs for requests to the non-mTLS event stream route from unexpected source IPs.
Additional information
- This content is not included.Bugzilla 2489126: aap-gateway: missing requestHeadersToRemove allows mTLS bypass via Subject header spoofing
- Content from cwe.mitre.org is not included.CWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata
Unless explicitly stated as not affected, all previous versions of packages in any minor update stream of a product listed here should be assumed vulnerable, although may not have been subject to full analysis.
| Products / Services | Components | State | Errata |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8 | automation-gateway | Fixed | This content is not included.RHSA-2026:42078 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 9 | automation-gateway | Fixed | This content is not included.RHSA-2026:42078 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/gateway-rhel9 | Fixed | RHSA-2026:13545 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 9 | automation-gateway | Fixed | RHSA-2026:13508 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 | ansible-automation-platform-27/gateway-rhel9 | Fixed | RHSA-2026:42142 |
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authorities (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications ).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS v3 Base Score | 8.2 | N/A | 8.2 |
| Attack Vector | Network | N/A | Network |
| Attack Complexity | Low | N/A | Low |
| Privileges Required | None | N/A | None |
| User Interaction | None | N/A | None |
| Scope | Unchanged | N/A | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality Impact | Low | N/A | Low |
| Integrity Impact | High | N/A | High |
| Availability Impact | None | N/A | None |
CVSS v3 Vector
Red Hat CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
cve.org CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Acknowledgements
This issue was discovered by Chris Meyers (Red Hat).
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?
For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.
My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?
- "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
- "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.
What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?
Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
- Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
- Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
- Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?
Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
- Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
- Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
- Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.
What is a mitigation?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.