CVE-2026-23886VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jan 2026Updated 21 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-23886: swift-w3c-trace-context · Improper Input Validation

Affects swift-w3c-trace-contextSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.0.4 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.0.4

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

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

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jan 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 2026-10-25.

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 swift-otel to 1.0.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
swift-otelswift-w3c-trace-context	Affected =swift-otel < 1.0.4 =swift-w3c-trace-context < 1.0.0-beta.5	Fixed in–
SwiftURLswift-w3c-trace-context`pkg:swift/swift-w3c-trace-context`Other threats	Affected =1.0.0-beta.5	Fixed in–
SwiftURLswift-otel`pkg:swift/swift-otel`Other threats	Affected <1.0.4	Fixed in 1.0.4

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately assess their use of swift-otel and swift-w3c-trace-context libraries in their software stacks. The primary mitigation is to upgrade swift-otel to version 1.0.4 or later and swift-w3c-trace-context to version 1.0.0-beta.5 or later, where the input validation flaw is patched. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, temporarily disabling the tracing middleware or any code that extracts trace context from incoming HTTP headers can prevent exploitation. Additionally, implement network-level protections such as rate limiting and input validation proxies to filter malformed HTTP headers before they reach the application. Monitoring application logs for crashes or unusual trace header anomalies can help detect attempted exploitation. Incorporating fuzz testing and input validation checks in development pipelines can prevent similar issues. Finally, ensure that incident response plans include procedures for handling DoS events caused by malformed telemetry data.

Description

Swift W3C TraceContext is a Swift implementation of the W3C Trace Context standard, and Swift OTel is an OpenTelemetry Protocol (OTLP) backend for Swift Log, Swift Metrics, and Swift Distributed Tracing. Prior to Swift W3C TraceContext version 1.0.0-beta.5 and Swift OTel version 1.0.4, a denial-of-service vulnerability due to improper input validation allows a remote attacker to crash the service via a malformed HTTP header. This allows crashing the process with data coming from the network when used with, for example, an HTTP server. Most common way of using Swift W3C Trace Context is through Swift OTel. Version 1.0.0-beta.5 of Swift W3C TraceContext and version 1.0.4 of Swift OTel contain a patch for this issue. As a workaround, disable either Swift OTel or the code that extracts the trace information from an incoming header (such as a `TracingMiddleware`).

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk of service disruption in backend systems that utilize Swift-based HTTP servers with OpenTelemetry instrumentation via swift-otel and swift-w3c-trace-context libraries. Distributed tracing is critical for observability in modern cloud-native and microservices architectures; thus, a DoS attack exploiting this flaw can degrade monitoring capabilities and potentially cause downtime or degraded service availability. This may impact sectors relying on real-time telemetry data, such as financial services, telecommunications, and public services. While the vulnerability does not expose sensitive data or allow unauthorized access, the availability impact can affect operational continuity and incident response effectiveness. Organizations with automated tracing pipelines and heavy reliance on Swift for backend services are particularly vulnerable. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for prompt remediation.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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 27 Jan 2026, 20:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats