ts-2026-013
Vulnerability from tailscale

Description: Leaked private keys for eMudhra TLS intermediate certificates

What happened?

To validate TLS connections, the Tailscale client and Tailscale servers rely on the host operating system's root certificate store (for example, ca-certificates on Linux). Our control plane certificates are signed by Let's Encrypt, so the Tailscale client also embeds Let's Encrypt CA certificates, in case they're absent from your system's certificate store. Tailscale accepts any TLS connection which is signed by a certificate trusted by the system certificate store.

Eight TLS intermediate certificates owned by eMudhra Limited have been compromised. This would allow an attacker to create new certificates for websites they do not control, and these certificates would be trusted by any device that trusts the compromised certificates. Users connecting to the malicious website would receive no warning about incorrect certificates.

Tailscale v1.104.2 or later includes Go 1.27.3, which explicitly distrusts the compromised certificates, even if they are still included in your system certificate store.

Tailscale's internal services have been updated to distrust the compromised certificates, by updating to Go 1.27.3 and updating the host certificate stores.

What was the impact?

An attacker could create TLS certificate for domains they did not own. Devices would accept these TLS certificates as valid and connect to the attacker-controlled website.

Who was affected?

This issue affects any device running on an operating system where the compromised eMudhra intermediate root certificates remain in the system certificate store.

Standard Tailscale mesh traffic between nodes (WireGuard end-to-end encryption using Tailscale node keys) is not affected, as node-to-node data plane traffic does not rely on public Web PKI or system certificate stores.

What do I need to do?

Update to Tailscale v1.104.2 or later.

Show details on source website


{
  "guidislink": false,
  "id": "https://tailscale.com/security-bulletins/#ts-2026-013",
  "link": "https://tailscale.com/security-bulletins/#ts-2026-013",
  "links": [
    {
      "href": "https://tailscale.com/security-bulletins/#ts-2026-013",
      "rel": "alternate",
      "type": "text/html"
    }
  ],
  "published": "Wed, 21 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT",
  "summary": "\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescription\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Leaked private keys for eMudhra TLS intermediate certificates\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eWhat happened?\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo validate TLS connections, the Tailscale client and Tailscale servers rely on the host operating system\u0027s root certificate store (for example, \u003ccode\u003eca-certificates\u003c/code\u003e on Linux).\nOur control plane certificates are signed by Let\u0027s Encrypt, so the Tailscale client also embeds Let\u0027s Encrypt CA certificates, in case they\u0027re absent from your system\u0027s certificate store.\nTailscale accepts any TLS connection which is signed by a certificate trusted by the system certificate store.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEight TLS intermediate certificates owned by eMudhra Limited have been compromised.\nThis would allow an attacker to create new certificates for websites they do not control, and these certificates would be trusted by any device that trusts the compromised certificates.\nUsers connecting to the malicious website would receive no warning about incorrect certificates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTailscale v1.104.2 or later includes Go 1.27.3, which explicitly distrusts the compromised certificates, even if they are still included in your system certificate store.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTailscale\u0027s internal services have been updated to distrust the compromised certificates, by updating to Go 1.27.3 and updating the host certificate stores.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eWhat was the impact?\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn attacker could create TLS certificate for domains they did not own.\nDevices would accept these TLS certificates as valid and connect to the attacker-controlled website.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eWho was affected?\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects any device running on an operating system where the compromised eMudhra intermediate root certificates remain in the system certificate store.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStandard Tailscale mesh traffic between nodes (WireGuard end-to-end encryption using Tailscale node keys) is not affected, as node-to-node data plane traffic does not rely on public Web PKI or system certificate stores.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eWhat do I need to do?\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUpdate to Tailscale v1.104.2 or later.\u003c/p\u003e",
  "summary_detail": {
    "base": "https://tailscale.com/security-bulletins/index.xml",
    "language": null,
    "type": "text/html",
    "value": "\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescription\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Leaked private keys for eMudhra TLS intermediate certificates\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eWhat happened?\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo validate TLS connections, the Tailscale client and Tailscale servers rely on the host operating system\u0027s root certificate store (for example, \u003ccode\u003eca-certificates\u003c/code\u003e on Linux).\nOur control plane certificates are signed by Let\u0027s Encrypt, so the Tailscale client also embeds Let\u0027s Encrypt CA certificates, in case they\u0027re absent from your system\u0027s certificate store.\nTailscale accepts any TLS connection which is signed by a certificate trusted by the system certificate store.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEight TLS intermediate certificates owned by eMudhra Limited have been compromised.\nThis would allow an attacker to create new certificates for websites they do not control, and these certificates would be trusted by any device that trusts the compromised certificates.\nUsers connecting to the malicious website would receive no warning about incorrect certificates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTailscale v1.104.2 or later includes Go 1.27.3, which explicitly distrusts the compromised certificates, even if they are still included in your system certificate store.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTailscale\u0027s internal services have been updated to distrust the compromised certificates, by updating to Go 1.27.3 and updating the host certificate stores.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eWhat was the impact?\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn attacker could create TLS certificate for domains they did not own.\nDevices would accept these TLS certificates as valid and connect to the attacker-controlled website.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eWho was affected?\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects any device running on an operating system where the compromised eMudhra intermediate root certificates remain in the system certificate store.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStandard Tailscale mesh traffic between nodes (WireGuard end-to-end encryption using Tailscale node keys) is not affected, as node-to-node data plane traffic does not rely on public Web PKI or system certificate stores.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eWhat do I need to do?\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUpdate to Tailscale v1.104.2 or later.\u003c/p\u003e"
  },
  "title": "TS-2026-013",
  "title_detail": {
    "base": "https://tailscale.com/security-bulletins/index.xml",
    "language": null,
    "type": "text/plain",
    "value": "TS-2026-013"
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

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…