ssl.SSLContext.wrap_bio() didn't require the server_hostname argument
to not be None if ssl.SSLContext.check_hostname was set. Due to a
missing parameter check in SSLObject, if the server_hostname argument
isn't supplied then hostname verification would be silently skipped.
This defect could lead to programs where certificate hostname verification
*appeared* to be succeeding with SSLContext.check_hostname = True and no
ValueError being raised due to misconfiguration.
If the program passes a server_hostname value that isn't an empty string
or None to any of these APIs then certificate hostname verification
proceeds as expected and the program is not affected by this vulnerability.
Mitigating this vulnerability doesn't require updating Python or applying
the patch. To mitigate, pass a valid non-None and non-empty
server_hostname value to SSLContext.wrap_bio(),
asyncio.create_connection(), or asyncio.loop.start_tls() and
certificate hostname verification will proceed as expected. Upgrading to
the latest version of Python or applying the patch only changes the
behavior from silently skipping hostname verification to raising a
ValueError, similar to SSLContext.wrap_socket(), when server_hostname
isn't supplied.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.6): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.6 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.6 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
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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