Quick answer
Direct answer
Risk scores
| CVSS metric | What it means |
|---|---|
| Attack vector (AV:N) | Network: reachable remotely |
| Attack complexity (AC:H) | High complexity |
| Attack requirements (AT:P) | Attack requirements present |
| Privileges required (PR:N) | No privileges required |
| User interaction (UI:N) | No user interaction |
| Confidentiality (VC:H) | High confidentiality impact |
| Integrity (VI:H) | High integrity impact |
| Availability (VA:N) | No availability impact |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
About Suse Rancher
CVE-2026-44946 affects Suse Rancher, a product from Suse. Before acting, confirm where Suse Rancher runs in your estate, who owns it and whether it is reachable from the internet, because exposure decides real risk more than the score alone.
What the flaw is
In plain terms: A SAML authentication replay vulnerability in Rancher's Assertion Consumer Service (ACS) handler did not enforce one-time use of SAML assertion, potentially allowing person in the middle attacks against Rancher, affecting Rancher 2.14.0 before 2.14.3,
Based on its CVSS vector, the flaw can be reached over the network, needs no login, and needs no user interaction. Apply the vendor fix and confirm exposure on internet facing and business critical assets first.
Affected versions and timeline
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Product | Suse Rancher |
| Affected versions | Rancher from 2.11.0 before 2.11.15; Rancher from 2.12.0 before 2.12.11; Rancher from 2.13.0 before 2.13.7; Rancher from 2.14.0 before 2.14.3 |
| Published | Jun 30, 2026 |
| Last modified | Jul 2, 2026 |
| Added to CISA KEV | Not listed |
| Assigning CNA | meissner@suse.de |
How to detect it
- Inventory every instance of Suse Rancher and record the running version against the affected range above.
- Check external attack surface scans for internet facing instances of the component.
- Review logs on affected systems for unusual requests, errors or new processes around the vulnerable function.
- Confirm with an authenticated vulnerability scan once your scanner has a check for this CVE.
How to fix it
- Apply the fixed version of Suse Rancher named in the vendor advisory.
- If patching must wait, restrict network access to the affected service and put it behind authentication or a web application firewall rule.
- Rescan after the change to prove the exposure is gone, then close the ticket.
CTEM action plan
| CTEM stage | What to do for this CVE |
|---|---|
| Scope | Add every business service that depends on Suse Rancher to the current CTEM cycle. |
| Discover | Find all instances, including shadow and cloud deployments, and record versions and exposure. |
| Prioritize | Rank using EPSS and CVSS together with asset exposure and business impact. |
| Validate | Confirm the flaw is reachable and exploitable in your environment and that compensating controls work. |
| Mobilize | Assign the fix to the asset owner with a due date matched to the priority, then verify closure. |
CWE References
Technical References
Frequently asked questions
Related CVEs
Potential forgery of webhook requests when using a unauthenticated webhook in SUSE Rancher Fleet 0.15 before 0.15.2, 0.14 before 0.14.6, 0.13 before 0.13.11 and 0.12 before 0.12.5 could be used by remote attackers to cause a denial of service or a downgrade attack on other repositories on the system.
Improper privilege handling could be used by users with Project Owner role to escalate privileges, in Rancher versions 2.14 before 2.14.2, 2.13 before 2.13.6, and 2.12 before 2.12.10.
A Improper Access Control vulnerability in the kernel of SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP5 breaks nftables, causing firewall rules applied via nftables to not be effective.This issue affects SUSE Linux Enterprise Server: from 9e6d9d4601768c75fdb0bad3fbbe636e748939c2 before 9c294edb7085fb91650bc12233495a8974c5ff2d.
Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to obtain paid resources by resubmitting one settled on-chain transfer. MPP.Methods.EVM.verify/2 accepts a transaction-hash credential and matches a transfer purely on token, to and amount (ERC-20) or to and value (native). It binds the proof neither to the challenge being verified nor to any record of prior use, and the generic MPP.Plug dedup store keys on challenge.id, which is regenerated for every 402 response. On a static-price route, a single historical transfer matching the charge therefore satisfies an unbounded number of later charges, including transfers an attacker can read off a public block explorer. This issue affects mpp: from 0.3.0 before 0.6.3.
OneUptime is a solution for monitoring and managing online services. In version 10.0.11 and prior, the WebAuthn authentication implementation does not store the challenge on the server side. Instead, the challenge is returned to the client and accepted back from the client request body during verification. This violates the WebAuthn specification (W3C Web Authentication Level 2, §13.4.3) and allows an attacker who has obtained a valid WebAuthn assertion (e.g., via XSS, MitM, or log exposure) to replay it indefinitely, completely bypassing the second-factor authentication. No known patches are available.
Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated third party to obtain paid resources by replaying a transfer settled by an unrelated payer. MPP.Methods.Tempo normally binds a settled TIP-20 TransferWithMemo to the specific challenge under verification through an attribution nonce carried in the memo. When a static "memo" is configured in method_config, check_matched_memo_binding/3 returns the match unconditionally and that binding is skipped, leaving only token, recipient, amount and the static memo value to match on. The static memo is echoed in every unauthenticated 402 response and Tempo transfers are public, so an attacker can take any matching transfer paid by a legitimate customer, request a fresh challenge for the same route, and present that transaction hash as a type="hash" credential. The hash path performs no sender or signature check tying the presenter to the wallet that broadcast the transfer. This issue affects mpp: from 0.6.1 before 0.6.4.
Earn your free CTEM certification.
Learn to scope, prioritize, validate and mobilize fixes for CVEs like CVE-2026-44946 with a free CTEM certification.
Beginner / Practitioner / Program Leader
Explore certifications