EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo release containing the referenced fix is confirmed: check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 7.7Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
Authentication bypass by spoofing in X509Authenticator and X509AuthenticationListener of Symfony versions prior to 5.4.56, 6.x prior to 6.4.50, 7.x prior to 7.4.23, and 8.x prior to 8.1.11 allows an attacker holding a certificate from the application's trusted CA who can influence the CN to authenticate as an arbitrary user of the application, including a privileged one, following an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-45063.
X509Authenticator extracts the user identifier from the Subject DN (Distinguished Name) that the web server passes in $_SERVER['SSL_CLIENT_S_DN']. The fix for CVE-2026-45063 anchored that extraction to an RDN (Relative Distinguished Name) boundary, but the regular expression used was not escape-aware. The expression runs against an already serialized DN, so it cannot tell an RDN separator from a separator character that occurs inside a value. Under RFC 2253, used by Apache and by nginx's $ssl_client_s_dn, a comma inside a value is escaped as \, and the expression reads it as a separator regardless. RFC 2253 also does not treat / as a separator, so it leaves it bare inside a value, while the expression treats every / as one. The legacy X509_NAME_oneline() format, used by Apache's LegacyDNStringFormat and by nginx's $ssl_client_s_dn_legacy, is the mirror image: it escapes / as \/ and leaves , bare. In that format, a certificate with no emailAddress attribute, or whose poisoned CN precedes it, authenticates as the smuggled address.
To cover both RFC 2253 and the legacy X509_NAME_oneline() format, X509Authenticator and X509AuthenticationListener now split the DN into RDNs before looking for the attribute, instead of matching the attribute against the serialized string. They select the separator from the serialization, split on unescaped occurrences of that separator only, unescape each RDN afterwards with the rules of its format, and require the attribute to span a whole RDN. The accepted value grammar is unchanged.
Applications that pass a per-attribute user key (such as SSL_CLIENT_S_DN_Email) and deployments whose CA generates or validates the subject are not affected by this vulnerability.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.7 HIGHCVSS-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
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-05). 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.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.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 referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
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.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
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