Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature and Improper Certificate Validation in the OPC UA driver of Apache PLC4X (PLC4J) allows an attacker in a network position between client and server to impersonate the OPC UA server and to read, forge or modify secure-channel traffic, including user credential ssent by the client.
The defect manifests differently depending on the version:
- In 0.9.0 through 0.11.0 a failed message-signature check is only logged and never enforced, and there is no mechanism to verify the server certificate: it is taken from the unauthenticated GetEndpoints discovery response and used to encrypt the user's password.
- In 0.12.0 through 0.13.1 the signature check is inverted (valid signatures are rejected, invalid ones accepted), and server certificates are accepted without a trust anchor by default.
- In all affected versions the default security policy is None. Starting with 0.12.0 the driver additionally continues silently at a weaker security policy than the one configured, and starting with 0.13.0 endpoint selection prefers the weakest matching endpoint.
Users checking only for one of these mechanisms may wrongly conclude they are unaffected.
This issue affects Apache PLC4X: from 0.9.0 before 1.0.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.0.0, which fixes the issue. Version 1.0.0 verifies message signatures correctly, refuses to connect unless the server certificate can be verified against a configured trust store or pinned certificate, defaults to Basic256Sha256 with SignAndEncrypt, and fails the
connection if the negotiated security policy is weaker than the configured one.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.2 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (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