CVE-2018-10931
Redhat Satellite 5.6 … 5.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2018-10931 is a critical-severity Exposed Dangerous Method or Function (CWE-749) vulnerability in Redhat Satellite. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.8% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-3134
Vulnerability Data
It was found that cobbler 2.6.x exposed all functions from its CobblerXMLRPCInterface class over XMLRPC. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could use this flaw to gain high privileges within cobbler, upload files to arbitrary location in the context of the daemon.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
Likely ATT&CK TechniquesAI
Techniques this vulnerability likely enables, inferred from its description, weakness type, and attributed-actor tradecraft. Confidence is per-technique.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 4 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
V8.2.1
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Enforcing least-privilege authorization directly prevents unrestricted dangerous API methods.
Secure SDLC practices stop developers from exposing dangerous functions in the first place.
Vulnerability identification processes will surface exposed dangerous methods during assessment.
Logical access controls at the network/environment layer can limit reachability of exposed functions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect exposed dangerous functions, but does not prevent their initial introduction.
Restricting privileged utility programs reduces exposure of dangerous functions, but does not eliminate the underlying weakness.
Privileged access rights limit who can invoke dangerous methods, but do not address whether the method itself should exist.
Secure development life cycle requires removal or protection of dangerous APIs during design and coding.
Application security requirements can mandate that dangerous methods are not exposed in interfaces.
Secure architecture principles discourage exposing dangerous functions, but do not guarantee their absence.