CVE-2026-85088 (GCVE-0-2026-85088)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-02 11:37 – Updated: 2026-10-02 17:40
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Apache Thrift, Apache Thrift: The C++ and D clients fall back to the certificate Common Name when subjectAltName entries are present but do not match
Summary
Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.
Both libraries install a default access manager for client sockets — TSSLSocketFactory does so in C++, and the accessManager property does so in D — which compares the peer certificate against the host
name that was connected to. That comparison walks the subjectAltName dNSName entries first and consults the certificate Common Name afterwards. A name that does not match yields a "skip" result rather than
a rejection, so a certificate whose subjectAltName entries are all present and all non-matching falls through to the Common Name, which can then satisfy the check.
RFC 6125 section 6.4.4, and RFC 9525 section 2, require that the Common Name is not consulted when a dNSName subjectAltName is present. A certificate carrying subjectAltName entries for one name and a
Common Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.
Exploitation requires an attacker positioned on the network path who holds a certificate that chains to a certificate authority in the client's trust store and whose Common Name matches the connected host
name. Public certificate authorities have not issued on Common Name alone for many years, so this is principally a concern for deployments using a private or enterprise public-key infrastructure.
This issue affects the C++ library of Apache Thrift from 0.7.0 through 0.24.0 and the D library from 0.9.0 through 0.24.0. Users should upgrade to 0.25.0.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-02 17:39 UTC
CWE
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://lists.apache.org/thread/33otcgbqd27wf6qq8… | vendor-advisory |
| https://lists.apache.org/thread/zcgm7lx6037lvgvn8… | vendor-advisory |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | CPE status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apache Software Foundation | Apache Thrift |
Affected:
0 , < 0.25.0
(semver)
|
guessed |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-85088",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-02T17:39:52.481593Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T17:40:12.995Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://conan.io/center",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "thrift",
"packageURL": "pkg:conan/thrift",
"product": "Apache Thrift",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.25.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "D language bindings",
"product": "Apache Thrift",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.25.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "The ASF \u2014 found using Claude agents to study the security of open-source projects, validated and reported by Apache Thrift."
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eImproper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003eBoth libraries install a default access manager for client sockets \u2014 TSSLSocketFactory does so in C++, and the accessManager property does so in D \u2014 which compares the peer certificate against the host\n\u003cbr\u003ename that was connected to. That comparison walks the subjectAltName dNSName entries first and consults the certificate Common Name afterwards. A name that does not match yields a \"skip\" result rather than\n\u003cbr\u003ea rejection, so a certificate whose subjectAltName entries are all present and all non-matching falls through to the Common Name, which can then satisfy the check.\n\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003eRFC 6125 section 6.4.4, and RFC 9525 section 2, require that the Common Name is not consulted when a dNSName subjectAltName is present. A certificate carrying subjectAltName entries for one name and a\n\u003cbr\u003eCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003eExploitation requires an attacker positioned on the network path who holds a certificate that chains to a certificate authority in the client\u0027s trust store and whose Common Name matches the connected host\n\u003cbr\u003ename. Public certificate authorities have not issued on Common Name alone for many years, so this is principally a concern for deployments using a private or enterprise public-key infrastructure.\n\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003eThis issue affects the C++ library of Apache Thrift from 0.7.0 through 0.24.0 and the D library from 0.9.0 through 0.24.0. Users should upgrade to 0.25.0.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth libraries install a default access manager for client sockets \u2014 TSSLSocketFactory does so in C++, and the accessManager property does so in D \u2014 which compares the peer certificate against the host\n\nname that was connected to. That comparison walks the subjectAltName dNSName entries first and consults the certificate Common Name afterwards. A name that does not match yields a \"skip\" result rather than\n\na rejection, so a certificate whose subjectAltName entries are all present and all non-matching falls through to the Common Name, which can then satisfy the check.\n\n\n\nRFC 6125 section 6.4.4, and RFC 9525 section 2, require that the Common Name is not consulted when a dNSName subjectAltName is present. A certificate carrying subjectAltName entries for one name and a\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation requires an attacker positioned on the network path who holds a certificate that chains to a certificate authority in the client\u0027s trust store and whose Common Name matches the connected host\n\nname. Public certificate authorities have not issued on Common Name alone for many years, so this is principally a concern for deployments using a private or enterprise public-key infrastructure.\n\n\n\nThis issue affects the C++ library of Apache Thrift from 0.7.0 through 0.24.0 and the D library from 0.9.0 through 0.24.0. Users should upgrade to 0.25.0."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "moderate"
},
"type": "Textual description of severity"
},
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6.9,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"exploitMaturity": "UNREPORTED",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-295",
"description": "CWE-295 Improper certificate validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-297",
"description": "CWE-297 Improper validation of certificate with host mismatch",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T11:37:14.749Z",
"orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"shortName": "apache"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/33otcgbqd27wf6qq810q56znzbomnhg1"
},
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/zcgm7lx6037lvgvn87rc1tj3p0zhv371"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "INTERNAL"
},
"title": "Apache Thrift, Apache Thrift: The C++ and D clients fall back to the certificate Common Name when subjectAltName entries are present but do not match",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.3"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"assignerShortName": "apache",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-85088",
"datePublished": "2026-10-02T11:37:14.749Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-02T23:36:14.032Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T17:40:12.995Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"nvd": {
"cve": {
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://conan.io/center",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "thrift",
"packageURL": "pkg:conan/thrift",
"product": "Apache Thrift",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.25.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "D language bindings",
"product": "Apache Thrift",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.25.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"source": "security@apache.org"
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth libraries install a default access manager for client sockets \u2014 TSSLSocketFactory does so in C++, and the accessManager property does so in D \u2014 which compares the peer certificate against the host\n\nname that was connected to. That comparison walks the subjectAltName dNSName entries first and consults the certificate Common Name afterwards. A name that does not match yields a \"skip\" result rather than\n\na rejection, so a certificate whose subjectAltName entries are all present and all non-matching falls through to the Common Name, which can then satisfy the check.\n\n\n\nRFC 6125 section 6.4.4, and RFC 9525 section 2, require that the Common Name is not consulted when a dNSName subjectAltName is present. A certificate carrying subjectAltName entries for one name and a\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation requires an attacker positioned on the network path who holds a certificate that chains to a certificate authority in the client\u0027s trust store and whose Common Name matches the connected host\n\nname. Public certificate authorities have not issued on Common Name alone for many years, so this is principally a concern for deployments using a private or enterprise public-key infrastructure.\n\n\n\nThis issue affects the C++ library of Apache Thrift from 0.7.0 through 0.24.0 and the D library from 0.9.0 through 0.24.0. Users should upgrade to 0.25.0."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-85088",
"lastModified": "2026-10-02T18:17:06.237",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV40": [
{
"cvssData": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"baseScore": 6.9,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"exploitMaturity": "UNREPORTED",
"integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"source": "security@apache.org",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-85088",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-02T17:39:52.481593Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2026-10-02T12:17:21.800",
"references": [
{
"source": "security@apache.org",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/33otcgbqd27wf6qq810q56znzbomnhg1"
},
{
"source": "security@apache.org",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/zcgm7lx6037lvgvn87rc1tj3p0zhv371"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "security@apache.org",
"vulnStatus": "Deferred",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-295"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-297"
}
],
"source": "security@apache.org",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
},
"redhat_vex": {
"aggregate_severity": "Important",
"current_release_date": "2026-10-02T22:06:06+00:00",
"cve": "CVE-2026-85088",
"id": "CVE-2026-85088",
"initial_release_date": "2026-10-02T11:37:14.749000+00:00",
"product_status:fixed": "13",
"product_status:known_affected": "12",
"source": "Red Hat CSAF VEX",
"status": "final",
"title": "thrift: thrift: Man-in-the-middle attacks via improper certificate validation",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-85088.json",
"version": "3"
},
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-85088",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-02T17:39:52.481593Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T17:40:03.847Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://conan.io/center",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "thrift",
"packageURL": "pkg:conan/thrift",
"product": "Apache Thrift",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.25.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "D language bindings",
"product": "Apache Thrift",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.25.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "The ASF \u2014 found using Claude agents to study the security of open-source projects, validated and reported by Apache Thrift."
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eImproper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003eBoth libraries install a default access manager for client sockets \u2014 TSSLSocketFactory does so in C++, and the accessManager property does so in D \u2014 which compares the peer certificate against the host\n\u003cbr\u003ename that was connected to. That comparison walks the subjectAltName dNSName entries first and consults the certificate Common Name afterwards. A name that does not match yields a \"skip\" result rather than\n\u003cbr\u003ea rejection, so a certificate whose subjectAltName entries are all present and all non-matching falls through to the Common Name, which can then satisfy the check.\n\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003eRFC 6125 section 6.4.4, and RFC 9525 section 2, require that the Common Name is not consulted when a dNSName subjectAltName is present. A certificate carrying subjectAltName entries for one name and a\n\u003cbr\u003eCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003eExploitation requires an attacker positioned on the network path who holds a certificate that chains to a certificate authority in the client\u0027s trust store and whose Common Name matches the connected host\n\u003cbr\u003ename. Public certificate authorities have not issued on Common Name alone for many years, so this is principally a concern for deployments using a private or enterprise public-key infrastructure.\n\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003eThis issue affects the C++ library of Apache Thrift from 0.7.0 through 0.24.0 and the D library from 0.9.0 through 0.24.0. Users should upgrade to 0.25.0.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth libraries install a default access manager for client sockets \u2014 TSSLSocketFactory does so in C++, and the accessManager property does so in D \u2014 which compares the peer certificate against the host\n\nname that was connected to. That comparison walks the subjectAltName dNSName entries first and consults the certificate Common Name afterwards. A name that does not match yields a \"skip\" result rather than\n\na rejection, so a certificate whose subjectAltName entries are all present and all non-matching falls through to the Common Name, which can then satisfy the check.\n\n\n\nRFC 6125 section 6.4.4, and RFC 9525 section 2, require that the Common Name is not consulted when a dNSName subjectAltName is present. A certificate carrying subjectAltName entries for one name and a\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation requires an attacker positioned on the network path who holds a certificate that chains to a certificate authority in the client\u0027s trust store and whose Common Name matches the connected host\n\nname. Public certificate authorities have not issued on Common Name alone for many years, so this is principally a concern for deployments using a private or enterprise public-key infrastructure.\n\n\n\nThis issue affects the C++ library of Apache Thrift from 0.7.0 through 0.24.0 and the D library from 0.9.0 through 0.24.0. Users should upgrade to 0.25.0."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "moderate"
},
"type": "Textual description of severity"
},
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6.9,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"exploitMaturity": "UNREPORTED",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-295",
"description": "CWE-295 Improper certificate validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-297",
"description": "CWE-297 Improper validation of certificate with host mismatch",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T11:37:14.749Z",
"orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"shortName": "apache"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/33otcgbqd27wf6qq810q56znzbomnhg1"
},
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/zcgm7lx6037lvgvn87rc1tj3p0zhv371"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "INTERNAL"
},
"title": "Apache Thrift, Apache Thrift: The C++ and D clients fall back to the certificate Common Name when subjectAltName entries are present but do not match",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.3"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"assignerShortName": "apache",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-85088",
"datePublished": "2026-10-02T11:37:14.749Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-02T23:36:14.032Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T17:40:12.995Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.
Loading…