CVE-2026-117666

CRITICALPre-NVD 9.19.1
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This critical-severity CVE scores 9.1 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.2% (8th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-114450 (ENISA EUVD)Source: ENISA EUVD

9.1EG
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.

Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch vulnerability in deadtrickster ssl_verify_fun allows an adversary in the middle to impersonate a TLS peer via a certificate that carries a partial-label wildcard. try_match_wildcard/4 in src/ssl_verify_hostname.erl anchors only the text before and after the * of an identifier such as f*.example.net, so the wildcard also consumes dots and the certificate is accepted for f.evil.example.net. RFC 6125 confines a wildcard to the left-most label. The same matcher lets *.168.1.1 match the IP literal 192.168.1.1. Whole-label wildcards are matched correctly.

Erlang/OTP 20.0 and later check the hostname in ssl before a user verify_fun sees valid_peer, so a client that keeps server_name_indication set rejects the mismatch regardless. Exposed are clients that disable SNI, servers that verify client certificate hostnames with this library, and direct callers of verify_cert_hostname/2.

This issue affects ssl_verify_fun: from 1.0.1 before 1.1.8.

CVSS v3
9.1
EG Score
9.1CRITICALmedium confidence
EG Risk
41
EG Risk 41/100

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)
Severity91% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.1 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 BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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 (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
9.1 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 2026-11-01). 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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 30, 2026

Last Modified

October 30, 2026

Advisory Details (6)

Auto-updated Oct 30, 2026
🔬 Proof of concept available. Patch available. Sources: github, github_pr, github_commit.
GitHub commit Patch Available

commit ca34031299cd (deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl)

Patch available: deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl 1.1.8 (contains commit ca34031299cd)

https://github.com/deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl/commit/ca34031299cd2e0c98794c0da4ba556b94e39aad
GitHub commit Patch Available

commit a49ca5692335 (deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl)

Patch available: deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl 1.0.8 (contains commit a49ca5692335)

https://github.com/deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl/commit/a49ca56923356c7a3981692b23c42ef32c2990e0
GitHub pull request

Do not let partial-label wildcards match across label boundaries

Upstream fix in progress (PR #33 · deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl, state=closed)

https://github.com/deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl/pull/33
Web page🟡 PoC Available

OSV - Open Source Vulnerabilities

https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-117666
Web page🟡 PoC Available

CVE-2026-117666

https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-117666.html
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)🟡 PoC Available

ssl_verify_fun: partial-label wildcard certificate matches hostnames across a label boundary · Advisory · deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl · GitHub

https://github.com/deadtrickster/ssl_verify_fun.erl/security/advisories/GHSA-7gw2-hphm-c5px

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Hex(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
ssl_verify_fun1.0.8 ... 1.1.7 (9 versions)1.1.8 (one range)—

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 8× 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. 2026-11-02 02:15 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 23:50 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-31 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  5. 2026-10-30 22:02 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-114450 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  6. 2026-10-30 21:26 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-30 20:29 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 9.1 CRITICAL
  8. 2026-10-30 20:28 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-117666?
CVE-2026-117666 is a critical-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 30, 2026. Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch vulnerability in deadtrickster ssl_verify_fun allows an adversary in the middle to impersonate a TLS peer via a certificate that carries a partial-label wildcard. try_match_wildcard/4 in src/ssl_verify_hostname.erl anchors only the text before…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-117666 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-117666 was published on October 30, 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 30, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-117666 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-117666 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-2026-117666?
CVE-2026-117666 has a CVSS base score of 9.1 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-117666?
A fix for CVE-2026-117666 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-117666

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-117666?

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