CVE-2026-27145 (GCVE-0-2026-27145)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2026-06-02 22:01
Modified
2026-06-04 12:34
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
Summary
(*x509.Certificate).VerifyHostname previously called matchHostnames in a loop over all DNS Subject Alternative Name (SAN) entries. This caused strings.Split(host, ".") to execute repeatedly on the same input hostname. With a large DNS SAN list, verification costs scaled quadratically based on the number of SAN entries multiplied by the hostname's label count. Because x509.Verify validates hostnames before building the certificate chain, this overhead occurred even for untrusted certificates.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Go standard library | crypto/x509 |
Version: 0 ≤ Version: 1.26.0-0 ≤ |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-27145",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-06-04T12:34:03.859208Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-04T12:34:53.136Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://pkg.go.dev",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "crypto/x509",
"product": "crypto/x509",
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "HostnameError.Error"
},
{
"name": "matchHostnames"
},
{
"name": "Certificate.Verify"
},
{
"name": "Certificate.VerifyHostname"
}
],
"vendor": "Go standard library",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.25.11",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "1.26.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.26.0-0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Jakub Ciolek - https://ciolek.dev/"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "(*x509.Certificate).VerifyHostname previously called matchHostnames in a loop over all DNS Subject Alternative Name (SAN) entries. This caused strings.Split(host, \".\") to execute repeatedly on the same input hostname. With a large DNS SAN list, verification costs scaled quadratically based on the number of SAN entries multiplied by the hostname\u0027s label count. Because x509.Verify validates hostnames before building the certificate chain, this overhead occurred even for untrusted certificates."
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"description": "CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity",
"lang": "en"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-02T22:01:36.954Z",
"orgId": "1bb62c36-49e3-4200-9d77-64a1400537cc",
"shortName": "Go"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://go.dev/cl/783621"
},
{
"url": "https://go.dev/issue/79694"
},
{
"url": "https://groups.google.com/g/golang-announce/c/tKs3rmcBcKw"
},
{
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-5037"
}
],
"title": "Inefficient candidate hostname parsing in crypto/x509"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "1bb62c36-49e3-4200-9d77-64a1400537cc",
"assignerShortName": "Go",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-27145",
"datePublished": "2026-06-02T22:01:36.954Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-02-17T19:57:28.435Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-04T12:34:53.136Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…