Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-44919

Openstack Ironic 23.0.4 – 29.0.6

Public PoC
Published
14 May 2026
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 4.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0047 38th percentile
Risk Priority 37 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-44919 is a medium-severity Incorrect Behavior Order (CWE-696) vulnerability in Openstack Ironic. Its CVSS base score is 4.3 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 38th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and RA-5 (Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

In OpenStack Ironic through 35.x before a3f6d73, during image handling, an infinite loop in checksum calculations can occur via the file:///dev/zero URL.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-44916Same product: Openstack Ironic
CVE-2026-44917Same product: Openstack Ironic
CVE-2026-42997Same product: Openstack Ironic
CVE-2026-48681Same product: Openstack Ironic
CVE-2026-50589Same product: Openstack Ironic
CVE-2026-46447Same product: Openstack Ironic
CVE-2026-43001Same vendor: Openstack
CVE-2026-33551Same vendor: Openstack
CVE-2026-50221Same vendor: Openstack
CVE-2026-42998Same vendor: Openstack

Affected Assets

openstack
ironic
23.0.4 — 29.0.6 · 30.0.0 — 32.0.2 · 33.0.0 — 35.0.2

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages can discover incorrect ordering of related behaviors before deployment.

Vulnerability scanning may surface order-related weaknesses after code is built but does not address their root cause.

Mandating a documented development process and standards enforces review of behavior ordering within the software lifecycle.

Security and privacy engineering principles applied during design and implementation directly require correct sequencing of operations to avoid introducing order-dependent flaws.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly enforce correct sequencing of security-relevant operations during design and coding.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect ordering flaws but does not prevent them during development.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates correct sequencing of security activities, directly preventing incorrect behavior order.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles require proper ordering of design and implementation steps.

prevents

Secure coding standards enforce correct execution order of security-critical operations.

none

Change management may catch order-related issues during reviews but does not address root cause.

References