A flaw was found in the Pulp package. When a role-based access control (RBAC) object in Pulp is set to assign permissions on its creation, it uses the AutoAddObjPermsMixin (typically the addrolesforobjectcreator method). This method finds the object creator by checking the current authenticated user. For objects that are created within a task, this current user is set by the first user with any permissions on the task object. This means the oldest user with model/domain-level task permissions will always be set as the current user of a task, even if they didn't dispatch the task. Therefore, all objects created in tasks will have their permissions assigned to this oldest user, and the creating user will receive nothing.

"When creating a new keypair the ec2key module prints out the private key directly to the standard output. I wasn't able to find any way to disable this behavior in the module's documentation. This makes it unusable in any kind of public CI workflow such as GHA."

Confirmed impacting all collection releases, and back to ansible-core 2.8 (did not test further back).

A flaw was found in the python-cryptography package. This issue may allow a remote attacker to decrypt captured messages in TLS servers that use RSA key exchanges, which may lead to exposure of confidential or sensitive data.

Summary

js-cookie's internal assign() helper copies properties with for...in + plain assignment. When the source object is produced by JSON.parse, the JSON object's "proto" member is an own enumerable property, so the for…in enumerates it and the target[key] = source[key] write triggers the Object.prototype.proto setter on the fresh target ({}). The result is a per-instance prototype hijack: Object.prototype itself is untouched, but the merged attributes object now inherits attacker-controlled keys.

Because the consuming set() function then enumerates the merged object with another for...in, every key the attacker placed on the polluted prototype lands in the resulting Set-Cookie string as an attribute pair. The attacker can set domain=, secure=, samesite=, expires=, and path= on cookies whose attributes the developer thought were locked down.

Impact

Any application that forwards a JSON-derived object as the attributes argument to Cookies.set, Cookies.remove, Cookies.withAttributes, or Cookies.withConverter is vulnerable. This is the standard pattern when cookie configuration comes from a backend:

js const cfg = await fetch('/config').then(r => r.json()); Cookies.set('session', token, cfg.cookieAttrs); // cfg.cookieAttrs influenced by attacker

A payload of {"proto":{"domain":"evil.example","secure":"false","samesite":"None"}} causes js-cookie to emit:

Set-Cookie: session=TOKEN; path=/; domain=evil.example; secure=false; samesite=None

Affected code

js // src/assign.mjs — full file export default function (target) { for (var i = 1; i < arguments.length; i++) { var source = arguments[i] for (var key in source) { // includes own enumerable 'proto' target[key] = source[key] // [[Set]] form - fires proto setter } } return target } Proof of concept

Node 22.11.0, no third-party deps:

Environment setup bash mkdir -p /tmp/jscookie-poc && cd /tmp/jscookie-poc npm init -y npm i js-cookie

PoC js ubuntu@kuber:/tmp/jscookie-poc$ cat poc.mjs let lastSetCookie = ''; globalThis.document = { get cookie() { return ''; }, set cookie(v) { lastSetCookie = v; } };

const { default: Cookies } = await import('js-cookie');

const attackerAttrs = JSON.parse( '{"proto":{"secure":"false","domain":"evil.com","samesite":"None","expires":-1}}' );

Cookies.set('session', 'TOKEN', attackerAttrs);

console.log('Set-Cookie that js-cookie wrote to document.cookie:'); console.log(lastSetCookie);

Execution: <img width="2614" height="1174" alt="cls-2026-05-14-01 44 39" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/120df1fe-7e97-4ca3-904e-ab80d71ecf62" />

Suggested patch

diff --- a/src/assign.mjs +++ b/src/assign.mjs @@ export default function (target) { for (var i = 1; i < arguments.length; i++) { var source = arguments[i] - for (var key in source) { - target[key] = source[key] - } + for (var key in source) { + if (key === 'proto' || key === 'constructor' || key === 'prototype') continue + Object.defineProperty(target, key, { + value: source[key], + writable: true, + enumerable: true, + configurable: true, + }) + } } return target }

Equivalent one-liner alternative - iterate own names only and filter:

js for (const key of Object.getOwnPropertyNames(source)) { if (key === 'proto') continue target[key] = source[key] }

HTTP/2 Rapid reset attack The HTTP/2 protocol allows clients to indicate to the server that a previous stream should be canceled by sending a RSTSTREAM frame. The protocol does not require the client and server to coordinate the cancellation in any way, the client may do it unilaterally. The client may also assume that the cancellation will take effect immediately when the server receives the RSTSTREAM frame, before any other data from that TCP connection is processed.

Abuse of this feature is called a Rapid Reset attack because it relies on the ability for an endpoint to send a RSTSTREAM frame immediately after sending a request frame, which makes the other endpoint start working and then rapidly resets the request. The request is canceled, but leaves the HTTP/2 connection open.

The HTTP/2 Rapid Reset attack built on this capability is simple: The client opens a large number of streams at once as in the standard HTTP/2 attack, but rather than waiting for a response to each request stream from the server or proxy, the client cancels each request immediately.

The ability to reset streams immediately allows each connection to have an indefinite number of requests in flight. By explicitly canceling the requests, the attacker never exceeds the limit on the number of concurrent open streams. The number of in-flight requests is no longer dependent on the round-trip time (RTT), but only on the available network bandwidth.

In a typical HTTP/2 server implementation, the server will still have to do significant amounts of work for canceled requests, such as allocating new stream data structures, parsing the query and doing header decompression, and mapping the URL to a resource. For reverse proxy implementations, the request may be proxied to the backend server before the RSTSTREAM frame is processed. The client on the other hand paid almost no costs for sending the requests. This creates an exploitable cost asymmetry between the server and the client.

Multiple software artifacts implementing HTTP/2 are affected. This advisory was originally ingested from the swift-nio-http2 repo advisory and their original conent follows.

swift-nio-http2 specific advisory swift-nio-http2 is vulnerable to a denial-of-service vulnerability in which a malicious client can create and then reset a large number of HTTP/2 streams in a short period of time. This causes swift-nio-http2 to commit to a large amount of expensive work which it then throws away, including creating entirely new Channels to serve the traffic. This can easily overwhelm an EventLoop and prevent it from making forward progress.

swift-nio-http2 1.28 contains a remediation for this issue that applies reset counter using a sliding window. This constrains the number of stream resets that may occur in a given window of time. Clients violating this limit will have their connections torn down. This allows clients to continue to cancel streams for legitimate reasons, while constraining malicious actors.

A privilege escalation flaw was found in the Ansible Automation Platform. This flaw allows a remote authenticated user with 'change user' permissions to modify the account settings of the superuser account and also remove the superuser privileges.

A re-encrypt Route with destinationCACertificate explicitly set to the default serviceCA seems to skip internal Service TLS certificate validation, errorless serving content even if target Service certificate and certificate provided by target Pod(s) differ. Note that if we don't set destinationCACertificate in the Route yaml manifest (the Route will still implicitly use the same default serviceCA certificate, as described on the doc [1]) we will correctly get a error page.

References: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showbug.cgi?id=2041857

A path traversal vulnerability exists in Ansible when extracting tarballs. An attacker could craft a malicious tarball so that when using the galaxy importer of Ansible Automation Hub, a symlink could be dropped on the disk, resulting in files being overwritten.

An XSS exists in automation controller UI where the project name is susceptible to XSS injection.POC and INC ticket below

The collection remote for pulpansible stores tokens in plaintext instead of using pulp's encrypted field (https://github.com/pulp/pulpansible/blob/main/pulpansible/app/models.py#L234) and exposes them in read/write mode via the API (https://github.com/pulp/pulpansible/blob/main/pulpansible/app/serializers.py#L170) instead of marking it as write only.

A flaw was found in Ansible. Three API endpoints are accessible and return verbose, unauthenticated responses. This flaw allows a malicious user to access data that may contain important information.

A flaw was found in Ansible. Sensitive cookies without security flags over non-encrypted channels can lead to Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) and Cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks allowing attackers to read transmitted data.