{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-09-30T10:08:10.861Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/09/30/4"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      },
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2026-102508",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "no"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "total"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2026-09-30T14:39:20.327319Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-09-30T14:39:33.687Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "collectionURL": "https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2",
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "packageName": "org.apache.plc4x:plc4j-driver-opcua",
          "packageURL": "pkg:maven/org.apache.plc4x/plc4j-driver-opcua",
          "product": "Apache PLC4X",
          "vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "1.0.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "0.9.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "status": "unaffected",
              "version": "1.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "finder",
          "value": "Abhinav Agarwal"
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cpre\u003eImproper Verification of Cryptographic Signature and Improper Certificate Validation in the OPC UA driver of Apache PLC4X (PLC4J) allows an attacker in a network position between client and server to impersonate the OPC UA server and to read, forge or modify secure-channel traffic, including user credential ssent by the client.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe defect manifests differently depending on the version:\u003cbr\u003e- In 0.9.0 through 0.11.0 a failed message-signature check is only logged and never enforced, and there is no mechanism to verify the server certificate: it is taken from the unauthenticated GetEndpoints discovery response and used to encrypt the user\u0027s password.\u003cbr\u003e- In 0.12.0 through 0.13.1 the signature check is inverted (valid signatures are rejected, invalid ones accepted), and server certificates are accepted without a trust anchor by default.\u003cbr\u003e- In all affected versions the default security policy is None. Starting with 0.12.0 the driver additionally continues silently at a weaker security policy than the one configured, and starting with 0.13.0 endpoint selection prefers the weakest matching endpoint.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eUsers checking only for one of these mechanisms may wrongly conclude they are unaffected.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThis issue affects Apache PLC4X: from 0.9.0 before 1.0.0.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 1.0.0, which fixes the issue. Version 1.0.0 verifies message signatures correctly, refuses to connect unless the server certificate can be verified against a configured trust store or pinned certificate, defaults to Basic256Sha256 with SignAndEncrypt, and fails the\u003cbr\u003econnection if the negotiated security policy is weaker than the configured one.\u003c/pre\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"
            }
          ],
          "value": "Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature and Improper Certificate Validation in the OPC UA driver of Apache PLC4X (PLC4J) allows an attacker in a network position between client and server to impersonate the OPC UA server and to read, forge or modify secure-channel traffic, including user credential ssent by the client.\n\nThe defect manifests differently depending on the version:\n- In 0.9.0 through 0.11.0 a failed message-signature check is only logged and never enforced, and there is no mechanism to verify the server certificate: it is taken from the unauthenticated GetEndpoints discovery response and used to encrypt the user\u0027s password.\n- In 0.12.0 through 0.13.1 the signature check is inverted (valid signatures are rejected, invalid ones accepted), and server certificates are accepted without a trust anchor by default.\n- In all affected versions the default security policy is None. Starting with 0.12.0 the driver additionally continues silently at a weaker security policy than the one configured, and starting with 0.13.0 endpoint selection prefers the weakest matching endpoint.\n\nUsers checking only for one of these mechanisms may wrongly conclude they are unaffected.\n\nThis issue affects Apache PLC4X: from 0.9.0 before 1.0.0.\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 1.0.0, which fixes the issue. Version 1.0.0 verifies message signatures correctly, refuses to connect unless the server certificate can be verified against a configured trust store or pinned certificate, defaults to Basic256Sha256 with SignAndEncrypt, and fails the\nconnection if the negotiated security policy is weaker than the configured one."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "cvssV4_0": {
            "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "baseScore": 9.2,
            "baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
            "exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
            "version": "4.0",
            "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
          },
          "format": "CVSS",
          "scenarios": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "GENERAL"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-347",
              "description": "CWE-347 Improper verification of cryptographic signature",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        },
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-295",
              "description": "CWE-295 Improper Certificate Validation",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        },
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-757",
              "description": "CWE-757 Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation (\u0027Algorithm Downgrade\u0027)",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-09-30T07:42:43.537Z",
        "orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
        "shortName": "apache"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/o076mcnsx6wnqpdy780m7s6hddbbnjfw"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "EXTERNAL"
      },
      "timeline": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "time": "2026-07-09T11:54:00.000Z",
          "value": "reported to the Apache Security Team"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "time": "2026-07-10T11:55:00.000Z",
          "value": "fixed on develop (a2dbb6bfc0, 5a4d5bdb4c)"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "time": "2026-09-07T11:56:00.000Z",
          "value": "Apache PLC4X 1.0.0 released with the fix"
        }
      ],
      "title": "Apache PLC4X: OPC UA secure channel: integrity bypass, unverifiable server certificate, and silent downgrade",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.3"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
    "assignerShortName": "apache",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-102508",
    "datePublished": "2026-09-30T07:42:43.537Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-09-29T11:40:54.414Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-09-30T14:39:33.687Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CVE Program Container\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/09/30/4\"}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\", \"shortName\": \"CVE\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-30T10:08:10.861Z\"}}, {\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-102508\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"total\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-09-30T14:39:20.327319Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-30T14:39:28.873Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"Apache PLC4X: OPC UA secure channel: integrity bypass, unverifiable server certificate, and silent downgrade\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"EXTERNAL\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"finder\", \"value\": \"Abhinav Agarwal\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"format\": \"CVSS\", \"cvssV4_0\": {\"Safety\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"version\": \"4.0\", \"Recovery\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"baseScore\": 9.2, \"Automatable\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"CRITICAL\", \"valueDensity\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N\", \"exploitMaturity\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"providerUrgency\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"attackRequirements\": \"PRESENT\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"subIntegrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnIntegrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"subAvailabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnAvailabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"subConfidentialityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnConfidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"vulnerabilityResponseEffort\": \"NOT_DEFINED\"}, \"scenarios\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"GENERAL\"}]}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"Apache Software Foundation\", \"product\": \"Apache PLC4X\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"0.9.0\", \"lessThan\": \"1.0.0\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"unaffected\", \"version\": \"1.0.0\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"packageURL\": \"pkg:maven/org.apache.plc4x/plc4j-driver-opcua\", \"packageName\": \"org.apache.plc4x:plc4j-driver-opcua\", \"collectionURL\": \"https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2\", \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"timeline\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"time\": \"2026-07-09T11:54:00.000Z\", \"value\": \"reported to the Apache Security Team\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"time\": \"2026-07-10T11:55:00.000Z\", \"value\": \"fixed on develop (a2dbb6bfc0, 5a4d5bdb4c)\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"time\": \"2026-09-07T11:56:00.000Z\", \"value\": \"Apache PLC4X 1.0.0 released with the fix\"}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/o076mcnsx6wnqpdy780m7s6hddbbnjfw\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 1.0.3\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature and Improper Certificate Validation in the OPC UA driver of Apache PLC4X (PLC4J) allows an attacker in a network position between client and server to impersonate the OPC UA server and to read, forge or modify secure-channel traffic, including user credential ssent by the client.\\n\\nThe defect manifests differently depending on the version:\\n- In 0.9.0 through 0.11.0 a failed message-signature check is only logged and never enforced, and there is no mechanism to verify the server certificate: it is taken from the unauthenticated GetEndpoints discovery response and used to encrypt the user\u0027s password.\\n- In 0.12.0 through 0.13.1 the signature check is inverted (valid signatures are rejected, invalid ones accepted), and server certificates are accepted without a trust anchor by default.\\n- In all affected versions the default security policy is None. Starting with 0.12.0 the driver additionally continues silently at a weaker security policy than the one configured, and starting with 0.13.0 endpoint selection prefers the weakest matching endpoint.\\n\\nUsers checking only for one of these mechanisms may wrongly conclude they are unaffected.\\n\\nThis issue affects Apache PLC4X: from 0.9.0 before 1.0.0.\\n\\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 1.0.0, which fixes the issue. Version 1.0.0 verifies message signatures correctly, refuses to connect unless the server certificate can be verified against a configured trust store or pinned certificate, defaults to Basic256Sha256 with SignAndEncrypt, and fails the\\nconnection if the negotiated security policy is weaker than the configured one.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cpre\u003eImproper Verification of Cryptographic Signature and Improper Certificate Validation in the OPC UA driver of Apache PLC4X (PLC4J) allows an attacker in a network position between client and server to impersonate the OPC UA server and to read, forge or modify secure-channel traffic, including user credential ssent by the client.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe defect manifests differently depending on the version:\u003cbr\u003e- In 0.9.0 through 0.11.0 a failed message-signature check is only logged and never enforced, and there is no mechanism to verify the server certificate: it is taken from the unauthenticated GetEndpoints discovery response and used to encrypt the user\u0027s password.\u003cbr\u003e- In 0.12.0 through 0.13.1 the signature check is inverted (valid signatures are rejected, invalid ones accepted), and server certificates are accepted without a trust anchor by default.\u003cbr\u003e- In all affected versions the default security policy is None. Starting with 0.12.0 the driver additionally continues silently at a weaker security policy than the one configured, and starting with 0.13.0 endpoint selection prefers the weakest matching endpoint.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eUsers checking only for one of these mechanisms may wrongly conclude they are unaffected.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThis issue affects Apache PLC4X: from 0.9.0 before 1.0.0.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 1.0.0, which fixes the issue. Version 1.0.0 verifies message signatures correctly, refuses to connect unless the server certificate can be verified against a configured trust store or pinned certificate, defaults to Basic256Sha256 with SignAndEncrypt, and fails the\u003cbr\u003econnection if the negotiated security policy is weaker than the configured one.\u003c/pre\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-347\", \"description\": \"CWE-347 Improper verification of cryptographic signature\"}]}, {\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-295\", \"description\": \"CWE-295 Improper Certificate Validation\"}]}, {\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-757\", \"description\": \"CWE-757 Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation (\u0027Algorithm Downgrade\u0027)\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09\", \"shortName\": \"apache\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-30T07:42:43.537Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-102508\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-30T14:39:33.687Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-09-29T11:40:54.414Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-09-30T07:42:43.537Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"apache\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.2"
    }
  }
}