What is CVE-2026-0532?

CVE-2026-0532 is External Control of File Name or Path and Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Kibana Google Gemini Connector. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as SSRF mapped to CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-0532 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

7 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, cloud metadata access logs, egress proxy logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-0532 using CVSS 8.6, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highSSRFpublic exploit

CVE-2026-0532

CVE-2026-0532 — External Control of File Name or Path and Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Kibana Google Gemini Connector

External Control of File Name or Path (CWE-73) combined with Server-Side Request Forgery (CWE-918) can allow an attacker to cause arbitrary file disclosure through a specially crafted credentials JSON payload in the Google Gemini connector configuration. This requires an attacker to have authenticated access with privileges sufficient to create or modify connectors (Alerts & Connectors: All). The server processes a configuration without proper validation, allowing for arbitrary network requests and for arbitrary file reads.

Published Jan 14, 2026Updated Jul 15, 2026Sources: NVD, Elastic (CNA), GitHub, Red Hat (VEX)

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

Elastic

3 products listed

CVSS base

8.6

high

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade Kibana to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2026-0532

fixed0affected1not affected6

workaround: Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, appli…

none_available: Affected

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
Elastic	Kibana	8.15.0 to <= 8.19.9	Vulnerable
Elastic	Kibana	9.0.0 to <= 9.1.9	Vulnerable
Elastic	Kibana	9.2.0 to <= 9.2.3	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

None

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

None

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
8.6	CVSS 3.1	high	3.9	4	elastic.co (CNA), CNA, Elastic (CNA), Red Hat (VEX)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-664 · Server Side Request Forgery

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable Kibana.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 7 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPScloud metadata access logsegress proxy logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 8.6 (AV:N)
Jul 15, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Jan 14, 2026 · NVD

References

6 on the record

discuss.elastic.co/t/kibana-8-19-10-9-1-10-9-2-4-security-update-esa-2026-05/384524
Vendor Advisory
access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-0532
Vendor Advisory
bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2429540
Vendor Advisory
security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-0532.json
Vendor Advisory
www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-0532
Vendor Advisory
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0532
NVD

Elsewhere on this site

Elasticevery CVE for this vendor
SSRFsame class
CWE-918other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-0532 is External Control of File Name or Path and Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Kibana Google Gemini Connector, a high vulnerability affecting Kibana from Elastic. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 7 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 8.6 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.