CVE-2026-1778VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026Updated 4 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-1778: AWS SageMaker Python SDK · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects AWS SageMaker Python SDKSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 3.1.1 or 2.256.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.1, 2.256.0

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 2 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 2026-10-26.

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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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 sagemaker to 3.1.1 or 2.256.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIsagemaker`pkg:pypi/sagemaker`Other threats	Affected <3.1.1 <2.256.0	Fixed in 3.1.1 2.256.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-1778, European organizations should immediately upgrade the AWS SageMaker Python SDK to version 3.1.1, 2.256.0, or later, where the TLS certificate validation issue is resolved. Review and enforce strict TLS certificate validation policies in all custom SDK configurations and scripts, ensuring that no insecure flags or options disable verification. Conduct network monitoring to detect unusual HTTPS traffic patterns or potential MitM attempts during model import operations. Implement network segmentation and use private endpoints or VPNs for AWS SageMaker access to reduce exposure to network-based attacks. Regularly audit and update dependencies and SDK versions in AI/ML pipelines to prevent similar vulnerabilities. Educate development and security teams about the risks of disabling TLS verification and the importance of secure model deployment practices. Finally, maintain an incident response plan that includes scenarios involving AI model integrity compromise.

Description

Amazon SageMaker Python SDK before v3.1.1 or v2.256.0 disables TLS certificate verification for HTTPS connections made by the service when a Triton Python model is imported, incorrectly allowing for requests with invalid and self-signed certificates to succeed.

Impact

For European organizations leveraging AWS SageMaker for machine learning, this vulnerability can lead to significant risks. Attackers positioned on the network path could exploit the disabled certificate validation to perform MitM attacks, injecting malicious code or altering model data during import processes. This can compromise the integrity of AI models, leading to incorrect predictions or decisions, which is critical in sectors like finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure. Although confidentiality is not directly impacted, the integrity breach can cause cascading effects on business operations and compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR. The medium severity reflects the high complexity of exploitation, but organizations with sensitive AI workloads or those operating in regulated industries should prioritize remediation. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as adversaries may develop exploits over time. Additionally, the vulnerability could undermine trust in AI systems and cloud services if exploited, affecting organizational reputation and operational reliability.

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 10 Feb 2026, 10:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats