uTLS ServerHellos are accepted without checking TLS 1.3 downgrade canaries
### Description Before version 1.7.0, utls did not implement the TLS 1.3 downgrade protection mechanism specified in RFC 8446 Section 4.1.3 when using a utls ClientHello spec. This allowed an active network adversary to downgrade TLS 1.3 connections initiated by a utls client to a lower TLS version (e.g., TLS 1.2) by modifying the ClientHello message to exclude the SupportedVersions extension, causing the server to respond with a TLS 1.2 ServerHello (along with a downgrade canary in the ServerHello random field). Because utls did not check the downgrade canary in the ServerHello random field, clients would accept the downgraded connection without detecting the attack. This attack could also be used by an active network attacker to fingerprint utls connections. ### Fix Commit or Pull Request refraction-networking/utls#337, specifically refraction-networking/utls@f8892761e2a4d29054264651d3a86fda83bc83f9 ### References - https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/issues/181
describes (1)
Related CVEs.
| ID | severity | exploitable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-26994US | — | — | ||
uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. In versions 1.6.7 and below, uTLS did not imple… | ||||
references
External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.
- https://github.com/refraction-networking/utlsPACKAGE
- https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/commit/f8892761e2a4d29054264651d3a86fda83bc83f9WEB
- https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/issues/181WEB
- https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/pull/337WEB
- https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/security/advisories/GHSA-pmc3-p9hx-jq96WEB
- https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-26994ADVISORY
Advisories like this name the exposed products attackers go after on your perimeter. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.
Free scan