CVE-2026-42011High· 7.4▾ TwilightA flaw was found in gnutls. This vulnerability occurs because permitted name constraints were incorrectly ignored when previous Certificate Authorities (CAs) only had excluded name constraints. A remote attacker could exploit this to byp…
▾ Twilight zone — High severity, or a signal on a lesser flaw
impact 40.7 · likelihood 0.1 · exploitation 0
Need a working PoC? Pro members can cast a request and our team develops one — it lands right here.
Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization from CISA's ADP record at CVE.org: whether exploitation is observed, whether an attack can be automated, and how much of the system is at stake.
Exploit-prediction probability, daily snapshots since Jul 30.
Disclosure to exploitation, from the record and what we observed since indexing it.
Disclosed via NVD
0.5%
0.5% → 0.6%
Last analysed / modified upstream
A flaw was found in gnutls. This vulnerability occurs because permitted name constraints were incorrectly ignored when previous Certificate Authorities (CAs) only had excluded name constraints. A remote attacker could exploit this to bypass critical name constraint checks during certificate validation. This bypass could lead to the acceptance of invalid certificates, potentially enabling spoofing or man-in-the-middle attacks against affected systems.
Refer to the linked advisories for vendor-supplied fixes and affected version ranges.
Connected by shared product, vendor, weakness, or advisory.
CVE-2026-42013High· 8.2A flaw was found in gnutls
CVE-2026-42012High· 7.1A flaw was found in gnutls
CVE-2026-42014Medium· 6.6A flaw was found in GnuTLS
CVE-2026-5419Low· 3.7A flaw was found in gnutls
CVE-2026-5260High· 8.2A flaw was found in libgnutls
CVE-2026-42015Medium· 5.3A flaw was found in gnutls