VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-119189: digitalbazaar forge · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects digitalbazaar forgeSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 1.4.1 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:45 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	5.9

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade forge and @digitalbazaar/forge to 1.4.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
digitalbazaarforge	Affected <1.4.1	Fixed in 1.4.1
npm@digitalbazaar/forge`pkg:npm/@digitalbazaar/forge`Other threats	Affected <1.4.1	Fixed in 1.4.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade to forge version 1.4.1 or later, where this improper certificate validation issue is fixed. No other mitigation is required as the fix addresses the root cause.

Description

A vulnerability in digitalbazaar's forge (node-forge) prior to version 1.4.1 allows improper enforcement of the path length constraint in X.509 CA certificates when the keyUsage extension is missing. This can enable an attacker with control of a path-length-constrained CA private key or a subordinate CA certificate to create a certificate chain that exceeds the declared path length yet still passes verification. The issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

Impact

An attacker with access to a path-length-constrained CA private key or a subordinate CA certificate can create a certificate chain that violates the path length constraint but is accepted as valid by the vulnerable verification process. This could allow unauthorized certificate issuance or man-in-the-middle attacks in environments relying on node-forge for certificate validation. The vulnerability does not affect public web PKI CAs that include the keyUsage extension, but private PKIs with CA certificates missing this extension are at risk.

Summary

Forge (node-forge) is a JavaScript implementation of TLS. Before version 1.4.1, it only enforced the basicConstraints.pathLenConstraint of an X.509 CA certificate if the certificate also included a keyUsage extension. If a path-length-constrained CA certificate lacked the keyUsage extension, an attacker who controls that CA's private key or a subordinate CA certificate could construct a certificate chain that exceeds the path length limit but still passes pki.verifyCertificateChain(). This flaw affects private PKIs more commonly, as public web PKI CA certificates typically include the keyUsage extension. The vulnerability is addressed in forge version 1.4.1.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Oct 2026, 19:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats