VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-93601: rustls webpki · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects rustls webpkiSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.1 Low : upgrade to 0.104.0-alpha.6 or 0.103.12 when convenient.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 10:58 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.104.0-alpha.6, 0.103.12

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Sep 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 2 Nov 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 webpki and rustls/webpki to 0.104.0-alpha.6 or 0.103.12.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
rustlswebpki	Affected >=0.104.0-alpha.1 <0.104.0-alpha.6	Fixed in 0.104.0-alpha.6
rustlswebpki	Affected >=0.101.0 <0.103.12	Fixed in 0.103.12
crates.iorustls/webpki`pkg:cargo/rustls/webpki`Other threats	Affected >=0.101.0 <0.103.12 >=0.104.0-alpha.1 <0.104.0-alpha.6	Fixed in 0.103.12 0.104.0-alpha.6

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

AI-suggested

Until then, be aware of the risk posed by misissued wildcard certificates in affected versions.

Description

rustls-webpki (the Rust webpki fork used by rustls) versions >= 0.101.0 and prior to 0.103.12 and 0.104.0-alpha.6 incorrectly accepted permitted-subtree DNS name constraints for certificates asserting a wildcard name. For example, a name constraint of accept.example.com was treated as satisfied by a certificate for *.example.com, which could feasibly assert reject.example.com — a name outside the permitted subtree. Because name constraints are restrictions applied to otherwise properly issued certificates, the issue is only reachable after signature verification succeeds and requires a misissued wildcard certificate to exploit.

Impact

This vulnerability could allow a certificate with a wildcard name to assert DNS names outside the permitted subtree defined by name constraints, potentially enabling unauthorized use of domain names. However, exploitation requires a misissued wildcard certificate and occurs only after successful signature verification. The CVSS score of 2.1 indicates low severity, reflecting limited impact and high attack complexity.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Sep 2026, 13:47 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats