GHSA-76QH-XR7Q-H39M

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-04 18:30 – Updated: 2026-07-15 22:30
VLAI
Summary
OpenStack oslo.messaging does not verify RabbitMQ broker hostname during TLS handshake
Details

An issue was discovered in OpenStack oslo.messaging 1.0.0 through 17.3.0. The oslo.messaging RabbitMQ driver does not perform TLS hostname verification when connecting to the message broker. When ssl_ca_file is configured, the driver enables certificate chain validation but does not pass the expected broker hostname into the underlying TLS stack. Any certificate signed by the deployment CA is accepted regardless of hostname, allowing an attacker who can intercept control-plane traffic to impersonate the RabbitMQ broker and perform a man-in-the-middle attack on RPC and notification traffic. All OpenStack services using oslo.messaging with RabbitMQ over TLS are affected.

Severity
7.4 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "oslo.messaging"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.0.0"
            },
            {
              "last_affected": "17.3.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-44393"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-297",
      "CWE-295"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-15T22:30:07Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-04T16:16:38Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An issue was discovered in OpenStack oslo.messaging 1.0.0 through 17.3.0. The oslo.messaging RabbitMQ driver does not perform TLS hostname verification when connecting to the message broker. When ssl_ca_file is configured, the driver enables certificate chain validation but does not pass the expected broker hostname into the underlying TLS stack. Any certificate signed by the deployment CA is accepted regardless of hostname, allowing an attacker who can intercept control-plane traffic to impersonate the RabbitMQ broker and perform a man-in-the-middle attack on RPC and notification traffic. All OpenStack services using oslo.messaging with RabbitMQ over TLS are affected.",
  "id": "GHSA-76qh-xr7q-h39m",
  "modified": "2026-07-15T22:30:07Z",
  "published": "2026-06-04T18:30:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44393"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-44393"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+bug/2150316"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2484835"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openstack/oslo.messaging"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-44393.json"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OSSN/OSSN-0096"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenStack oslo.messaging does not verify RabbitMQ broker hostname during TLS handshake"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.