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-2026-93562. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-93562 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?

A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-93562. 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 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-2026-93562 using CVSS 6.5, 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.

medium

CVE-2026-93562

CVE-2026-93562 — Io.netty/netty-codec-http: netty: incomplete validation of malformed transfer-encoding allows http request smuggling

A flaw was found in Netty's HTTP/1 decoder. Incomplete validation of malformed Transfer-Encoding headers allows a remote attacker to perform HTTP request smuggling. By sending specially crafted HTTP requests, an attacker can inject arbitrary HTTP requests, potentially bypassing security controls or accessing unauthorized resources.

Published Sep 18, 2026Updated Sep 18, 2026Sources: NVD, Red Hat (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, 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

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

Red Hat

13 products listed

CVSS base

6.5

medium

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade Red Hat AMQ Broker 7 to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2026-93562

fixed0affected13not affected0

workaround: See https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-hcvj-94mj-jp5c for fixed versions and remediation guidance.

no_fix_planned: Out of support scope

none_available: Fix deferred

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 AMQ Broker 7	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat AMQ Clients	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4 for Quarkus 3	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat build of Apache Camel for Spring Boot 4	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat build of Apicurio Registry 3	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat build of Debezium 3	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat Build of Keycloak	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat build of Quarkus	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat Data Grid 8	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat Fuse 7	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 7	—	Vulnerable
Red Hat	Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8	—	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

None

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

Low

Scope

Unchanged

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
6.5	CVSS 3.1	medium	3.9	2.5	NVD, Red Hat (CNA), GHSA, Red Hat (VEX)

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

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-1035

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 /1.
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable Red Hat AMQ Broker 7, Red Hat AMQ Clients, Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4 for Quarkus 3, Red Hat build of Apache Camel for Spring Boot 4, Red Hat build of Apicurio Registry 3, Red Hat build of Debezium 3, Red Hat Build of Keycloak, Red Hat build of Quarkus, Red Hat Data Grid 8, Red Hat Fuse 7, Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 7, Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8, Red Hat Single Sign-On 7.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

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 6.5 (AV:N)
Sep 18, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 18, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-c599-gp9v-cp79 published (medium)
Sep 18, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 18, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
Reported to Red Hat.
Sep 10, 2026 · Red Hat
Reported · Made public.
Sep 10, 2026 · Red Hat

References

5 on the record

access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-93562
Vendor Advisory
bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2536951
Vendor Advisory, Mitre
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-93562
NVD
github.com/advisories/GHSA-c599-gp9v-cp79
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-93562
Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

Red Hatevery CVE for this vendor
Unclassifiedsame class
CWE-1035other 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-2026-93562 is Io.netty/netty-codec-http: netty: incomplete validation of malformed transfer-encoding allows http request smuggling, a medium vulnerability affecting Red Hat AMQ Broker 7, Red Hat AMQ Clients, Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4 for Quarkus 3, Red Hat build of Apache Camel for Spring Boot 4, Red Hat build of Apicurio Registry 3, Red Hat build of Debezium 3, Red Hat Build of Keycloak, Red Hat build of Quarkus, Red Hat Data Grid 8, Red Hat Fuse 7, Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 7, Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8, Red Hat Single Sign-On 7 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-2026-93562. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-93562. 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 6.5 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.