“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.
Score 9.1 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2026-09-10. CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 baseline 9.1; sources differ by 0.0.
Also known asEUVD-2026-75248 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-fjwp-v5xg-5q39 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
A fix is available — apply it.
An unauthenticated network-adjacent attacker can leverage discovery to capture cluster administrative credentials during the initial cluster connection handshake.
This issue affects Apache Artemis: from 2.50.0 through 2.56.0; Apache ActiveMQ Artemis: from 1.0.0 through 2.44.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.57.0, which fixes the issue.
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
September 10, 2026
September 16, 2026
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1.8 security update
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1.8 security update
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1.8 security update
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1.8 security update
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 7.4.25 security update
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 7.4.25 security update
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AMQ Broker 7.13.6 release and security update
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat AMQ Broker 7.14.1 release and security update
| Vendor / Ecosystem | Fix (by version range) / Patch | Released | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| redhat | eap8-xml-security-0:3.0.6-1.redhat_00001.1.el8eap | 2026-09-22 | redhat |
| redhat | org.apache.activemq/artemis-server:2.40.0.redhat-00024 | 2026-09-22 | redhat |
| redhat | eap8-xml-security-0:3.0.6-1.redhat_00001.1.el10eap | 2026-09-22 | redhat |
| redhat | eap8-xml-security-0:3.0.6-1.redhat_00001.1.el9eap | 2026-09-22 | redhat |
| redhat | org.apache.activemq/artemis-server:2.16.0.redhat-00057 | 2026-09-15 | redhat |
| redhat | eap7-wildfly-0:7.4.25-6.GA_redhat_00005.1.el9eap | 2026-09-15 | redhat |
| redhat | artemis-server | 2026-09-10 | redhat |
Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.
Showing the most recent 100 of 480 refreshes on record for this CVE.
A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 380 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.
redhat:RHSA-2026:66488
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-49364
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.