CVE Intelligence
High Cryptography

CVE-2026-39944 — Ceph: CephX AES Authentication error

Ceph is an open-source distributed storage platform providing object, block, and file storage. In versions prior to 20.2.4 and 19.2.6, the RADOS Gateway (RGW) protects STS session tokens with an AES-128-CBC handler that provides no message authentication, allowing an attacker who holds any valid STS token to tamper with it undetected and escalate to full RGW administrative access. Because the ciphertext is unauthenticated, the attacker can perform a CBC bit-flip on the acct_type, perm_type, and is_admin fields of their own token, and a forged is_admin value triggers a global administrative override that bypasses all capability checks. The attack is reachable remotely over the RGW S3 endpoint and is a self-contained modification of a token the attacker already possesses, requiring no encryption oracle and no network observation. It requires only a single valid STS token, which need not carry any elevated privileges, with STS enabled. This issue is fixed in versions 20.2.4 and 19.2.6.

Published Aug 27, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
  • Technical severity (high)+6

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

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

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.29%
ahead of 20% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Ceph
Ceph
CVSS base
8.8
High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

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

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Ceph Ceph).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Ceph Ceph version >= 19.0.0, < 19.2.6version >= 20.0.0, < 20.2.4 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
8.8 CVSS 3.1 High 2.8 5.9 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.8 CVSS 3.1 High — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-327 · Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · ceph/ceph
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 8.8
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Aug 27, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Ceph
every CVE for this vendor
Cryptography
same class
CWE-327
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • Critical CVE-2026-50152 Ceph Monitor subscription handler improperly authorizes config-key store reads, exposing cluster secrets to read-only users Aug 27, 2026
  • High CVE-2026-54330 Ceph RGW SigV4 handler accepts unsigned x-amz-* headers on presigned requests, allowing privilege escalation Aug 27, 2026
  • High CVE-2025-30156 Ceph: AES-CBC misuse in CephX and RADOSGW enables authentication bypass and credential forgery Aug 27, 2026
  • High CVE-2024-47866 RGW DoS attack with empty HTTP header in S3 object copy Nov 12, 2025

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 fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • 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 record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-39944 is "Ceph: CephX AES Authentication error", rated High. It affects Ceph (Ceph); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.29% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.