CVE-2026-109383

HIGHNVD 9.17.4
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“▼” beside the score: it is lower than NVD's CVSS score.

Score 7.4 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-10-27. NVD baseline CVSS 9.1; sources differ by 1.7.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Trending — Patch released this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-102314 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-2m5v-pch6-74hx (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.4EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 9.1Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

undici is an HTTP client library for Node.js. In versions 4.0.0 through 6.29.0, 7.0.0 through 7.30.0, and 8.0.0 through 8.12.1, its Agent dispatcher passes its constructor options through a JSON-based deep clone before forwarding them to each per-origin pool, and because JSON cannot represent functions, a caller-supplied tls option containing a checkServerIdentity callback is silently dropped before it reaches the TLS layer. As a result, a TLS peer whose certificate a custom checkServerIdentity was written to reject, but which passes Node's default hostname and chain checks, is silently accepted. Because Agent is the default dispatcher behind request, fetch, and setGlobalDispatcher, this affects the path most applications use, and EnvHttpProxyAgent is affected on its direct and no-proxy routes as well, while only applications that pass a function-valued tls option such as a custom checkServerIdentity for certificate or public-key pinning are at risk. The issue is fixed in undici 6.29.1, 7.30.1, and 8.12.2, which preserve the tls option outside the JSON clone so custom verification callbacks are forwarded unchanged, and users should upgrade to one of those versions or later. As a workaround, pass the TLS options through connect instead of tls, or for proxied destinations use requestTls and proxyTls.

CVSS v3
9.1
EG Score
7.4HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
33
EG Risk 33/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity74% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.4 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
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.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
8th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.4 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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).

A fix is available. 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

Published

October 15, 2026

Last Modified

October 19, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Oct 15, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github.
Web page

Security Advisories | OpenJS Foundation CVE Numbering Authority

https://cna.openjsf.org/security-advisories.html
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

undici vulnerable to TLS certificate validation bypass via dropped tls options in Agent · Advisory · nodejs/undici · GitHub

https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-2m5v-pch6-74hx

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-109383(5)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(7)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
redhatrhoai/odh-mod-arch-model-registry-rhel9:17930018272026-10-29redhat
redhatnodejs26-main-26.12.1-0.1.hum12026-10-22redhat
redhatnodejs26-main-11.20.0-1.26.11.1.0.4.hum12026-10-19redhat
redhatnodejs24-main-24.21.0-1.5.hum12026-10-19redhat
npmundici @ 6.29.1 (fixes >= 4.0.0, < 6.29.1)—ghsa
npmundici @ 7.30.1 (fixes >= 7.0.0, < 7.30.1)—ghsa
npmundici @ 8.12.2 (fixes >= 8.0.0, < 8.12.2)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
npm(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
undici—
  • 4.0.0 up to 6.29.1: fixed in 6.29.1
  • 7.0.0 up to 7.30.1: fixed in 7.30.1
  • 8.0.0 up to 8.12.2: fixed in 8.12.2
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 22× in last 7d / 54× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 22:19 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-11-01 22:19 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-11-01 22:19 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-2m5v-pch6-74hx · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.4
  4. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  5. 2026-11-01 08:00 UTCEG score recompute▼ 1.70
  6. 2026-11-01 08:00 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-2m5v-pch6-74hx · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.4
  7. 2026-10-31 20:11 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-31 20:11 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-10-31 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  10. 2026-10-30 18:06 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-30 18:06 UTCVendor advisory
  12. 2026-10-30 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  13. 2026-10-29 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  14. 2026-10-29 16:02 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-29 16:02 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-10-28 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  17. 2026-10-28 13:58 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-28 13:58 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-10-27 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  20. 2026-10-27 11:37 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-27 11:37 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  23. 2026-10-26 09:33 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-26 09:33 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-10-25 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
Show 29 more
  1. 2026-10-25 14:53 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-25 07:30 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-25 07:30 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-10-24 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  5. 2026-10-24 05:26 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-24 05:26 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-10-23 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  8. 2026-10-23 03:22 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-23 03:22 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-10-22 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  11. 2026-10-22 01:16 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-22 01:16 UTCVendor advisory
  13. 2026-10-21 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  14. 2026-10-20 23:12 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-20 23:12 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-10-20 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  17. 2026-10-19 21:09 UTCEG score recompute▲ 1.70
  18. 2026-10-19 21:09 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-10-19 21:05 UTCNVD updateCVSS v3 → 9.1 · severity → CRITICAL
  20. 2026-10-19 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  22. 2026-10-18 05:06 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  24. 2026-10-16 21:27 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-16 20:23 UTCEG score recompute
  26. 2026-10-16 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  27. 2026-10-15 19:32 UTCEG score recompute
  28. 2026-10-15 18:44 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.4 HIGH
  29. 2026-10-15 18:42 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same product + same vendor + same CWE)

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-109383?
CVE-2026-109383 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 15, 2026. undici is an HTTP client library for Node.js. In versions 4.0.0 through 6.29.0, 7.0.0 through 7.30.0, and 8.0.0 through 8.12.1, its Agent dispatcher passes its constructor options through a JSON-based deep clone before forwarding them to each per-origin pool, and because JSON cannot represent…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-109383 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-109383 was published on October 15, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 19, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-109383 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-109383 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (8th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-109383?
CVE-2026-109383 has a CVSS v3 base score of 9.1 (NVD). EchelonGraph synthesises NVD + FIRST EPSS + GHSA into a combined EG score of 7.4 (HIGH).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-109383?
A fix for CVE-2026-109383 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-109383 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-109383

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-109383?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs