CVE-2026-27017 (GCVE-0-2026-27017)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-02-20 02:47 – Updated: 2026-02-20 15:20
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
uTLS has a Chrome Parrot Fingerprint Vulnerability due to GREASE ECH Cipher Suite Mismatch
Summary
uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. Versions 1.6.0 through 1.8.0 contain a fingerprint mismatch with Chrome when using GREASE ECH, related to cipher suite selection. When Chrome selects the preferred cipher suite in the outer ClientHello and for ECH, it does so consistently based on hardware support—for example, if it prefers AES for the outer cipher suite, it also uses AES for ECH. However, the Chrome parrot in uTLS hardcodes AES preference for outer cipher suites but selects the ECH cipher suite randomly between AES and ChaCha20. This creates a 50% chance of selecting ChaCha20 for ECH while using AES for the outer cipher suite, a combination impossible in Chrome. This issue only affects GREASE ECH; in real ECH, Chrome selects the first valid cipher suite when AES is preferred, which uTLS handles correctly. This issue has been fixed in version 1.8.1.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-02-20 15:20 UTC
CWE
- CWE-1240 - Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation
Assigner
GitHub_M
CNA
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/sec… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| refraction-networking | utls |
Affected:
>= 1.6.0, < 1.8.1
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-27017",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-02-20T15:20:06.758492Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-20T15:20:18.976Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "utls",
"vendor": "refraction-networking",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 1.6.0, \u003c 1.8.1"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. Versions 1.6.0 through 1.8.0 contain a fingerprint mismatch with Chrome when using GREASE ECH, related to cipher suite selection. When Chrome selects the preferred cipher suite in the outer ClientHello and for ECH, it does so consistently based on hardware support\u2014for example, if it prefers AES for the outer cipher suite, it also uses AES for ECH. However, the Chrome parrot in uTLS hardcodes AES preference for outer cipher suites but selects the ECH cipher suite randomly between AES and ChaCha20. This creates a 50% chance of selecting ChaCha20 for ECH while using AES for the outer cipher suite, a combination impossible in Chrome. This issue only affects GREASE ECH; in real ECH, Chrome selects the first valid cipher suite when AES is preferred, which uTLS handles correctly. This issue has been fixed in version 1.8.1."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 2.3,
"baseSeverity": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-1240",
"description": "CWE-1240: Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-20T02:47:17.899Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/security/advisories/GHSA-7m29-f4hw-g2vx",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/security/advisories/GHSA-7m29-f4hw-g2vx"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-7m29-f4hw-g2vx",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "uTLS has a Chrome Parrot Fingerprint Vulnerability due to GREASE ECH Cipher Suite Mismatch"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-27017",
"datePublished": "2026-02-20T02:47:17.899Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-02-17T03:08:23.490Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-20T15:20:18.976Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-27017",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-02-20T15:20:06.758492Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-20T15:20:12.740Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "utls",
"vendor": "refraction-networking",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 1.6.0, \u003c 1.8.1"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. Versions 1.6.0 through 1.8.0 contain a fingerprint mismatch with Chrome when using GREASE ECH, related to cipher suite selection. When Chrome selects the preferred cipher suite in the outer ClientHello and for ECH, it does so consistently based on hardware support\u2014for example, if it prefers AES for the outer cipher suite, it also uses AES for ECH. However, the Chrome parrot in uTLS hardcodes AES preference for outer cipher suites but selects the ECH cipher suite randomly between AES and ChaCha20. This creates a 50% chance of selecting ChaCha20 for ECH while using AES for the outer cipher suite, a combination impossible in Chrome. This issue only affects GREASE ECH; in real ECH, Chrome selects the first valid cipher suite when AES is preferred, which uTLS handles correctly. This issue has been fixed in version 1.8.1."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 2.3,
"baseSeverity": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-1240",
"description": "CWE-1240: Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-20T02:47:17.899Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/security/advisories/GHSA-7m29-f4hw-g2vx",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/refraction-networking/utls/security/advisories/GHSA-7m29-f4hw-g2vx"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-7m29-f4hw-g2vx",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "uTLS has a Chrome Parrot Fingerprint Vulnerability due to GREASE ECH Cipher Suite Mismatch"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-27017",
"datePublished": "2026-02-20T02:47:17.899Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-02-17T03:08:23.490Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-20T15:20:18.976Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
Loading timeline…
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.