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?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-12564. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-12564 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?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 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-2026-12564 using CVSS 9.6, 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.

criticalSSRFpublic exploit

CVE-2026-12564

CVE-2026-12564 — Automation-controller: automation-controller: kubernetes service account token exfiltration via hashicorp vault credential ssrf

A flaw was found in the AAP Controller's HashiCorp Vault credential plugin. The kubernetes_auth() function in awx_plugins/credentials/hashivault.py reads the controller pod's Kubernetes service account token and sends it to an attacker-controlled URL when a HashiCorp Vault Secret Lookup credential with kubernetes_role authentication is tested. An authenticated attacker with credential-creation privileges can exfiltrate the service account token, gaining Kubernetes API access to the control plane namespaces with full pod CRUD and secret read permissions, including database credentials and the Django SECRET_KEY.

Published Aug 18, 2026Updated Aug 18, 2026Sources: NVD, Red Hat (CNA), GitHub, Red Hat (VEX), SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

Red Hat

3 products listed

CVSS base

9.6

critical

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2 to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2026-12564

fixed0affected3not affected0

workaround: The following practices would help for avoiding exposure and mitigate this flaw: - Restrict network egress from controller pods using Kubernetes NetworkPolicy to prevent outbound …

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
Red Hat	Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2	—	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

None

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

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
9.6	CVSS 3.1	critical	3.1	5.8	NVD, Red Hat (CNA), Red Hat (VEX)

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

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Read Application Data
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands::

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

Detection

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

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /credentials/hashivault.py.
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 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 9.6 (AV:N)
Aug 18, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 18, 2026 · NVD
Reported · Made public.
Jul 17, 2026 · Red Hat
Reported to Red Hat.
Jun 17, 2026 · Red Hat

References

4 on the record

access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-12564
Vendor Advisory
bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2490556
Vendor Advisory, Mitre
www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12564
Vendor Advisory
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-12564
NVD

Elsewhere on this site

Red Hatevery 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-2026-12564 is Automation-controller: automation-controller: kubernetes service account token exfiltration via hashicorp vault credential ssrf, a critical vulnerability affecting Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2 from Red Hat. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-12564. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 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 9.6 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.