Skip to content

GHSA-xgp8-3hg3-c2mh CVE-2026-93601 RUSTSEC-2026-0099

webpki: Name constraints were accepted for certificates asserting a wildcard name

Low crates.io
Severity
2.1 / 10
Low · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.20%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 10.30% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-295 Improper Certificate Validation
Fix
0.103.12
Upgrade rustls-webpki to this version or later

Description

Permitted subtree name constraints for DNS names were accepted for certificates asserting a wildcard name.

This was incorrect because, given a name constraint of accept.example.com, *.example.com could feasibly allow a name of reject.example.com which is outside the constraint. This is very similar to CVE-2025-61727.

Since name constraints are restrictions on otherwise properly-issued certificates, this bug is reachable only after signature verification and requires misissuance to exploit.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
rustls-webpki
>= 0.101.0, < 0.103.12
0.103.12
rustls-webpki
>= 0.104.0-alpha.1, < 0.104.0-alpha.6
0.104.0-alpha.6
rustls-webpki
>= 0.0.0-0, < 0.103.12
>= 0.104.0-alpha.1, < 0.104.0-alpha.6
0.103.12
0.104.0-alpha.6

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

rustls-webpki crates.io → 0.103.12

cargo
cargo update -p rustls-webpki --precise 0.103.12

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 2.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
High
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 2.2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
  • Implementation: If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
RUSTSEC-2026-0382
Distrust compromised intermediate certificates in crypto/x509
Medium Also affects rustls-webpki
GHSA-82j2-j2ch-gfr8
rustls-webpki: Denial of service via panic on malformed CRL BIT STRING
High Also affects rustls-webpki
GHSA-965h-392x-2mh5
webpki: Name constraints for URI names were incorrectly accepted
Low Also affects rustls-webpki
GHSA-pwjx-qhcg-rvj4
webpki: CRLs not considered authoritative by Distribution Point due to faulty matching logic
Medium Also affects rustls-webpki
GHSA-fh2r-99q2-6mmg
rustls-webpki: CPU denial of service in certificate path building
High Also affects rustls-webpki
GHSA-4487-j8r4-4g2f
Forge: verifyCertificateChain() removes trusted CA certificates with the same subject from the CA store
Low Same weakness, CWE-295
GHSA-5x38-2vff-x55p
Forge: X.509 basicConstraints bypass in verifyCertificateChain() via deprecated extension OIDs 2.5.29.10 and 2.5.29.13
High Same weakness, CWE-295
EEF-CVE-2026-115693
Custom cacerts or cacertfile do not restrict trust to the pinned CA in hackney
Not rated yet Same weakness, CWE-295
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor