CWE-295
AllowedImproper Certificate Validation
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
2433 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-M7JQ-XVR4-F7XC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-04 19:01 – Updated: 2022-11-08 19:00A vulnerability in Cisco AsyncOS Software for Cisco Email Security Appliance (ESA) could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper handling of certain TLS connections that are processed by an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by establishing a large number of concurrent TLS connections to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the device to drop new TLS email messages that come from the associated email servers. Exploitation of this vulnerability does not cause the affected device to unexpectedly reload. The device will recover autonomously within a few hours of when the attack is halted or mitigated.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-20960"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295",
"CWE-400"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-04T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in Cisco AsyncOS Software for Cisco Email Security Appliance (ESA) could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper handling of certain TLS connections that are processed by an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by establishing a large number of concurrent TLS connections to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the device to drop new TLS email messages that come from the associated email servers. Exploitation of this vulnerability does not cause the affected device to unexpectedly reload. The device will recover autonomously within a few hours of when the attack is halted or mitigated.",
"id": "GHSA-m7jq-xvr4-f7xc",
"modified": "2022-11-08T19:00:23Z",
"published": "2022-11-04T19:01:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20960"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-esa-dos-gdghHmbV"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-esa-dos-gdghHmbV"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M7P8-9W66-9FRM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2018-01-06 01:11 – Updated: 2023-01-23 21:24The Net::LDAP (aka net-ldap) gem before 0.16.0 for Ruby has Missing SSL Certificate Validation.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "net-ldap"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.16.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-17718"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-06-16T21:45:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Net::LDAP (aka net-ldap) gem before 0.16.0 for Ruby has Missing SSL Certificate Validation.",
"id": "GHSA-m7p8-9w66-9frm",
"modified": "2023-01-23T21:24:13Z",
"published": "2018-01-06T01:11:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-17718"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby-ldap/ruby-net-ldap/issues/258"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby-ldap/ruby-net-ldap/pull/279"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby-ldap/ruby-net-ldap"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/12/17/10"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "net-ldap Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability"
}
GHSA-M835-W378-P8VP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:18 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:18CFEngine Enterprise 3.15.0 through 3.15.4 has Missing SSL Certificate Validation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-36756"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-27T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "CFEngine Enterprise 3.15.0 through 3.15.4 has Missing SSL Certificate Validation.",
"id": "GHSA-m835-w378-p8vp",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:18:57Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:18:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-36756"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cfengine.com/blog/2021/cve-2021-38379-and-cve-2021-36756"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cfengine.com/downloads/cfengine-enterprise"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-M8M3-3PMC-XJ5P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-16 18:31 – Updated: 2024-12-16 18:31An improper certificate validation vulnerability was reported in LADM that could allow a network attacker with the ability to redirect an update request to a remote server and execute code with elevated privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-6001"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-16T17:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An improper certificate validation vulnerability was reported in LADM that could allow a network attacker with the ability to redirect an update request to a remote server and execute code with elevated privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-m8m3-3pmc-xj5p",
"modified": "2024-12-16T18:31:09Z",
"published": "2024-12-16T18:31:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-6001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.lenovo.co/us/en/product_security/LEN-174319"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M8R2-QGR6-4GQM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-25 21:31 – Updated: 2026-06-26 21:32Certificates with wildcard DNS SANs (e.g. *.example.com) bypassed CA name-constraint checks. A certificate with a wildcard DNS SAN that should be rejected by the issuing CA's permitted/excluded DNS name constraints could be accepted.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-10592"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-25T20:17:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Certificates with wildcard DNS SANs (e.g. *.example.com) bypassed CA name-constraint checks. A certificate with a wildcard DNS SAN that should be rejected by the issuing CA\u0027s permitted/excluded DNS name constraints could be accepted.",
"id": "GHSA-m8r2-qgr6-4gqm",
"modified": "2026-06-26T21:32:11Z",
"published": "2026-06-25T21:31:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-10592"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/10549"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-M8X2-4GC8-9V3R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:56 – Updated: 2022-12-12 17:01A man in the middle vulnerability exists in Jenkins CollabNet Plugin 2.0.4 and earlier in CollabNetApp.java, CollabNetPlugin.java, CNFormFieldValidator.java that allows attackers to impersonate any service that Jenkins connects to. CollabNet Plugin 2.0.5 and newer no longer does that. It instead requires users to opt in to disabling SSL/TLS certificate validation by setting the system property hudson.plugins.collabnet.CollabNetPlugin.skipSslValidation to true. This feature applies to connections by this plugin only.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.0.4"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:collabnet"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-1000605"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-12T17:01:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-06-26T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A man in the middle vulnerability exists in Jenkins CollabNet Plugin 2.0.4 and earlier in CollabNetApp.java, CollabNetPlugin.java, CNFormFieldValidator.java that allows attackers to impersonate any service that Jenkins connects to. CollabNet Plugin 2.0.5 and newer no longer does that. It instead requires users to opt in to disabling SSL/TLS certificate validation by setting the system property hudson.plugins.collabnet.CollabNetPlugin.skipSslValidation to true. This feature applies to connections by this plugin only.",
"id": "GHSA-m8x2-4gc8-9v3r",
"modified": "2022-12-12T17:01:53Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:56:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-1000605"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/collabnet-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2018-06-25/#SECURITY-941"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins CollabNet Plugin man in the middle vulnerability"
}
GHSA-M959-CC7F-WV43
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-27 19:56 – Updated: 2026-06-05 17:51Summary
In versions of cryptography prior to 46.0.5, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the "peer name" presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf's parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com.
This behavior resulted from a gap between RFC 5280 (which defines Name Constraint semantics) and RFC 9525 (which defines service identity semantics): put together, neither states definitively whether Name Constraints should be applied to peer names. To close this gap, cryptography now conservatively rejects any validation where the peer name would be rejected by a name constraint if it were a SAN instead.
In practice, exploitation of this bypass requires an uncommon X.509 topology, one that the Web PKI avoids because it exhibits these kinds of problems. Consequently, we consider this a medium-to-low impact severity.
See CVE-2025-61727 for a similar bypass in Go's crypto/x509.
Remediation
Users should upgrade to 46.0.6 or newer.
Attribution
Reporter: @1seal
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "cryptography"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "46.0.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34073"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-27T19:56:21Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T03:15:59Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nIn versions of cryptography prior to 46.0.5, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the \"peer name\" presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named `bar.example.com` to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for `*.example.com`, even if the leaf\u0027s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for `bar.example.com`.\n\nThis behavior resulted from a gap between RFC 5280 (which defines Name Constraint semantics) and RFC 9525 (which defines service identity semantics): put together, neither states definitively whether Name Constraints should be applied to peer names. To close this gap, cryptography now conservatively rejects any validation where the peer name would be rejected by a name constraint if it were a SAN instead.\n\nIn practice, exploitation of this bypass requires an uncommon X.509 topology, one that the Web PKI avoids because it exhibits these kinds of problems. Consequently, we consider this a medium-to-low impact severity.\n\nSee CVE-2025-61727 for a similar bypass in Go\u0027s `crypto/x509`.\n\n## Remediation\n\nUsers should upgrade to 46.0.6 or newer. \n\n## Attribution\n\nReporter: @1seal",
"id": "GHSA-m959-cc7f-wv43",
"modified": "2026-06-05T17:51:29Z",
"published": "2026-03-27T19:56:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-m959-cc7f-wv43"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34073"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pyca/cryptography"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/cryptography/PYSEC-2026-35.yaml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "cryptography has incomplete DNS name constraint enforcement on peer names"
}
GHSA-M998-32Q9-VXPX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-23 18:31 – Updated: 2025-01-23 18:31ECOVACS lawnmowers and vacuums do not properly validate TLS certificates. An unauthenticated attacker can read or modify TLS traffic, possibly modifying firmware updates.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-52330"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-23T17:15:14Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "ECOVACS lawnmowers and vacuums do not properly validate TLS certificates. An unauthenticated attacker can read or modify TLS traffic, possibly modifying firmware updates.",
"id": "GHSA-m998-32q9-vxpx",
"modified": "2025-01-23T18:31:20Z",
"published": "2025-01-23T18:31:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52330"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://dontvacuum.me/talks/37c3-2023/37c3-vacuuming-and-mowing.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://dontvacuum.me/talks/HITCON2024/HITCON-CMT-2024_Ecovacs.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ecovacs.com/global/userhelp/dsa20241217001"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-M9GG-HP2V-232J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-30 15:35 – Updated: 2026-09-30 15:35Impact
When server credentials are created with the requireClientCertificate option set to false, getAuthContext does not distinguish between authorized and unauthorized certificates in its return value. This can create improper authentication vulnerabilities for @grpc/grpc-js users who use the result of getAuthContext for authentication.
In particular, @grpc/grpc-js-xds can both set the requireClientCertificate option to false and use the return value of getAuthContext for RBAC authentication in some configurations.
Patches
This vulenrability is fixed in 1.13.6 and 1.14.5.
Workarounds
@grpc/grpc-js users using getAuthContext this way can avoid this problem by setting requireClientCertificate to true. @grpc/grpc-js-xds users using RBAC can avoid this by setting the require_client_certificate field to true in the DownstreamTlsContext in the xDS configuration.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@grpc/grpc-js"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.13.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@grpc/grpc-js"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.14.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.14.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-101916"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-30T15:35:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-28T21:17:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nWhen server credentials are created with the `requireClientCertificate` option set to `false`, `getAuthContext` does not distinguish between authorized and unauthorized certificates in its return value. This can create improper authentication vulnerabilities for `@grpc/grpc-js` users who use the result of `getAuthContext` for authentication.\n\nIn particular, `@grpc/grpc-js-xds` can both set the `requireClientCertificate` option to `false` and use the return value of `getAuthContext` for RBAC authentication in some configurations.\n\n### Patches\n\nThis vulenrability is fixed in 1.13.6 and 1.14.5.\n\n### Workarounds\n`@grpc/grpc-js` users using `getAuthContext` this way can avoid this problem by setting `requireClientCertificate` to `true`. `@grpc/grpc-js-xds` users using RBAC can avoid this by setting the `require_client_certificate` field to `true` in the DownstreamTlsContext in the xDS configuration.",
"id": "GHSA-m9gg-hp2v-232j",
"modified": "2026-09-30T15:35:53Z",
"published": "2026-09-30T15:35:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/grpc/grpc-node/security/advisories/GHSA-m9gg-hp2v-232j"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-101916"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/grpc/grpc-node/commit/2a84ec8b01b9db68ed9d2b117a53a81449edb8ee"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/grpc/grpc-node/commit/b4e0079c6d22a2adedfcac748e0bc083f783bc7c"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/grpc/grpc-node"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/grpc/grpc-node/releases/tag/@grpc/grpc-js%401.14.5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "@grpc/grpc-js: In certain configurations, getAuthContext can return unauthorized certificates as though they were authorized"
}
GHSA-M9GH-789G-Q5PV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-15 12:30 – Updated: 2026-09-25 17:36Improper Authentication in Elasticsearch PKI realm can lead to user impersonation via specially crafted client certificates. A malicious actor would need to have such a crafted client certificate signed by a legitimate, trusted Certificate Authority.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.elasticsearch.plugin:x-pack-security"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "7.0.0-alpha1"
},
{
"fixed": "8.19.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.elasticsearch.plugin:x-pack-security"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.0.0-beta1"
},
{
"fixed": "9.1.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.elasticsearch.plugin:x-pack-security"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.2.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.elasticsearch.plugin:x-pack-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "7.0.0-alpha1"
},
{
"fixed": "8.19.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.elasticsearch.plugin:x-pack-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.0.0-beta1"
},
{
"fixed": "9.1.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.elasticsearch.plugin:x-pack-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.2.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-37731"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-295"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-12-16T15:52:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-15T11:15:39Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Authentication in Elasticsearch PKI realm can lead to user impersonation via specially crafted client certificates. A malicious actor would need to have such a crafted client certificate signed by a legitimate, trusted Certificate Authority.",
"id": "GHSA-m9gh-789g-q5pv",
"modified": "2026-09-25T17:36:03Z",
"published": "2025-12-15T12:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-37731"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/commit/cd97b8566bf56e628070021300784cb9cee0286f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/commit/d8a408da79f214395845d99d241e832077045983"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/commit/e519fe4c51a3c887675eb7daea2f914738847f23"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-8-19-8-9-1-8-and-9-2-2-security-update-esa-2025-27/384063"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Elasticsearch PKI Realm Authentication Bypass Vulnerability Allows User Impersonation Through Crafted Client Certificates"
}
Mitigation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Mitigation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
CAPEC-459: Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate
An adversary exploits a weakness resulting from using a hashing algorithm with weak collision resistance to generate certificate signing requests (CSR) that contain collision blocks in their "to be signed" parts. The adversary submits one CSR to be signed by a trusted certificate authority then uses the signed blob to make a second certificate appear signed by said certificate authority. Due to the hash collision, both certificates, though different, hash to the same value and so the signed blob works just as well in the second certificate. The net effect is that the adversary's second X.509 certificate, which the Certification Authority has never seen, is now signed and validated by that Certification Authority.
CAPEC-475: Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation
An adversary exploits a cryptographic weakness in the signature verification algorithm implementation to generate a valid signature without knowing the key.