CVE-2026-26994

mediumpriority · track · 0EPSS 0.003 · 23 %ileEUUS
grimoire priorityP3 · Track
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.30% (23rd) EPSS
CVSS 6.5 · medium
Is it mine?
4 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
4 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · osv · nvd

EPSS · scored 2026-10-27

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 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. This issue has been fixed in version 1.7.0.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

6.5
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode

v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · security-advisories@github.comexploitability 3.9 · impact 2.5
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · OSV
v3.16mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

ssvc

A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.

Exploitation: none · Automatable: yes · Technical Impact: partialcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

affected products (4)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

05

advisories (2)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • GHSA-pmc3-p9hx-jq96uTLS ServerHellos are accepted without checking TLS 1.3 downgrade canaries2025-04-23ghsa · osvUS

    ### 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

  • GO-2025-3638ServerHellos are accepted without checking TLS 1.3 downgrade canaries in github.com/refraction-networking/utls2025-04-24vendor · osvUS

    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.

06

also known as (5)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

07

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2026-02-20modified 2026-06-17
08

references (13)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan