SatelliteApplication · Redhat
CVE-2026-5135
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA flaw was found in Foreman. This broken access control vulnerability allows an authenticated user with host-edit permissions to retarget an existing lookup value override to a different host. This is achieved by modifying the match field through nested host attributes, effectively bypassing authorisation checks. The consequence is the potential for unauthorised modification of managed host configurations across different organisational and location boundaries.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThis is a broken access control vulnerability in Foreman where an authenticated user with host-edit permissions can retarget existing lookup value overrides to different hosts by modifying the 'match' field through nested host attributes. The attack bypasses authorization checks, enabling unauthorized modification of managed host configurations across organizational and location boundaries.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
SatelliteApplication
>= 6.16, < 6.16.10>= 6.17, < 6.17.9>= 6.18, < 6.18.7>= 6.19, < 6.19.2< 3.18.2>= 3.19.0, < 3.19.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Foreman or Red Hat Satellite versionRun 'foreman --version' or check the Satellite UI under Administer > About, or query the API: GET /api/statusAffected if Version is < 3.18.2, or >= 3.19.0 and < 3.19.1 for Theforeman; or >= 6.16 and < 6.16.10, >= 6.17 and < 6.17.9, >= 6.18 and < 6.18.7, or >= 6.19 and < 6.19.2 for Red Hat Satellite
-
Determine if lookup key overrides are configuredQuery the API for existing lookup keys with overrides: GET /api/lookup_keys or inspect the Foreman UI under Configure > Global Parameters > Lookup KeysAffected if Lookup keys with override values exist in the environment
-
Verify if any users have host-edit permissionsCheck role permissions in Administer > Roles or query: GET /api/roles to identify roles with the edit_hosts permissionAffected if Any users possess host-edit permissions, enabling them to potentially exploit this flaw
-
Audit recent lookup value override modificationsReview Foreman's audit log for changes to lookup_values; search for events where the 'match' field was modified, or check API: GET /api/audits?search=lookup_valueAffected if There are audit entries showing lookup value overrides were retargeted to different hosts, particularly across organization or location boundaries
A user is affected if they run a vulnerable Foreman/Satellite version AND have lookup key overrides configured AND possess host-edit permissions, with potential unauthorized retargeting visible in audit logs.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped3.18.23.19.16.16.10
Implement proper authorization validation when lookup value override match fields are modified to ensure users cannot retarget overrides to hosts outside their permitted scope. Consider adding explicit permission checks for cross-boundary lookup value modifications.
Foreman: 3.18.2 or 3.19.1 | Satellite: 6.16.10, 6.17.9, 6.18.7, or 6.19.2 depending on your current major version
- Identify current Foreman or Satellite version using 'hammer --version' or checking the UI About page
- For Foreman installations: upgrade to version 3.18.2 or 3.19.1 (choose based on your upgrade path compatibility)
- For Satellite installations: upgrade to the appropriate version: 6.16.10, 6.17.9, 6.18.7, or 6.19.2 matching your current major release
- Apply the upgrade following standard Foreman/Satellite upgrade procedures
- After upgrade, verify the fix by confirming the version number matches the fixed release
- Test that lookup value overrides correctly enforce authorization and cannot be retargeted across different hosts/organizations
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Satellite
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-5135 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-5135 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data