Home/CVE/Podman is a tool for managing OCI containers and pods. From 3.0.0 until 5.7.1, running a malicious container image where
CVE

CVE-2026-55686

Podman is a tool for managing OCI containers and pods. From 3.0.0 until 5.7.1, running a malicious container image where

Podman is a tool for managing OCI containers and pods. From 3.0.0 until 5.7.1, running a malicious container image where the WORKDIR path contains a symlink can create a directory or modify ownership on the host filesystem. Modified ownership is less likely to happen as that requires help from an untrusted/malicious process that mutates the host filesystem tree during dereferencing of the WORKDIR path, to trigger a race condition.

This vulnerability is fixed in 5.7.1.

MEDIUM · CVSS 5.3
Schedule remediation
  • SSVC automatable: yes - attacks can be scripted at scale
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-55686, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

Exploitation evidence

1 of 7 sources
Corroboration score 8/100 · emerging. This counts how many independent sources have exploitation evidence, and separates two different things: confirmed in-the-wild use (CISA KEV, Microsoft MSRC, ransomware activity) from exploit / PoC availability (Metasploit, ExploitDB, Nuclei, public PoCs). A template or PoC existing means an attack is possible and easy - it is not, on its own, proof the CVE is being exploited in the wild.
Exploit / PoC available
public PoC

Severity & exploitation scoring

View on NVD →
CVSS base score
5.3
MEDIUMCVSS v3.1 · [email protected]
EPSS exploitation probability
n/a
No EPSS score in our data for this CVE. EPSS is published daily for scored CVEs - a very new, reserved, or rejected CVE may not have one yet.
CVSS metric silhouette
VectorComplexityPrivilegesInteractionScopeConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
shape grows toward worst-case
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
poc
Automatable
yes
Tech impact
partial
CVSS vector breakdown
Exploitability - how they get in
Attack Vector
Network Adjacent Local Physical
Attack Complexity
Low High
Privileges Required
None Low High
User Interaction
None Required
Scope
Unchanged Changed
Impact - what breaks
Confidentiality
None Low High
Integrity
None Low High
Availability
None Low High
VECTORCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

ATT&CK techniques

1

Techniques this CVE enables. Pills with a solid outline are high confidence - named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei, or human-curated by CTID; the rest are inferred from the weakness type using MITRE's CVE Mapping Methodology and the CWE → CAPEC chain. Broad, generic-weakness guesses are filtered out. A small marks a technique that N independent sources agree on.

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques

CAPEC attack patterns

1

Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.

Weakness Classification

Affected Packages

5
Language-ecosystem packages (from OSV) tied to this CVE, with the version that fixes it - the dependency-level detail NVD doesn’t carry.
Go github.com/containers/podman
Go github.com/containers/podman/v2
Go github.com/containers/podman/v3 MODERATE
Go github.com/containers/podman/v4 MODERATE
Go github.com/containers/podman/v5 MODERATE fixed in 5.7.1
📦

Fixed versions by distribution

5
The package version that resolves this CVE on each Linux distribution, from the vendor’s published security data. fixed in shows a patched version exists; open means the package is listed as affected with no fix yet.
suse sle15podman open
suse sle15podman-cni-config open
suse sle15podman-docker open
suse sle15podman-remote open
suse sle15podmansh open
🔗

References & Sources

2
Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.