Issue summary: Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS
clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory
address resulting in abnormal termination of the application process.
Impact summary: Abnormal termination of an application can a cause a denial of
service.
Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking
server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address when
comparing the expected name with an otherName subject alternative name of an
X.509 certificate. This may result in an exception that terminates the
application program.
Note that basic certificate chain validation (signatures, dates, ...) is not
affected, the denial of service can occur only when the application also
specifies an expected DNS name, Email address or IP address.
TLS servers rarely solicit client certificates, and even when they do, they
generally don't perform a name check against a reference identifier (expected
identity), but rather extract the presented identity after checking the
certificate chain. So TLS servers are generally not affected and the severity
of the issue is Moderate.
The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.5 is EPSS's lift toward 9.0 from its impact severity (EG Severity, CVSS 7.5 HIGH): a likelihood of exploitation, not impact.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 67% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
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 partial (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)14 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 partial (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