VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2026Updated 17 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-100665: Netty versions from 4.2.11.Final before 4.2.18.Final contain an incomplete hostname verification fix in the QUIC certificate verification path when

Affects nettySource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 4.2.18 : patch netty soon.

Data as of 11 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.2.18

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 26 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 11 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.

ghsa-4qw4-fmqv-qhv8

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Ubuntu Pro 14.04 LTSnetty`pkg:deb/ubuntu/netty?arch=source&distro=esm-infra-legacy/trusty`Other threats	Affected =1:3.2.6.Final-2 =1:3.2.6.Final-2+deb8u2build0.14.04.1~esm1 =1:3.2.6.Final-2+deb8u2ubuntu0.1~esm1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 16.04 LTSnetty`pkg:deb/ubuntu/netty?arch=source&distro=esm-apps-legacy/xenial`Other threats	Affected 1:3.2.6.Final-2 – 1:4.0.34-1ubuntu0.1~esm5 9 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 18.04 LTSnetty`pkg:deb/ubuntu/netty?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/bionic`Other threats	Affected 1:4.1.7-4 – 1:4.1.7-4ubuntu0.1~esm1 10 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 20.04 LTSnetty`pkg:deb/ubuntu/netty?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/focal`Other threats	Affected 1:4.1.33-1 – 1:4.1.45-1ubuntu0.1~esm7 10 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 22.04 LTSnetty`pkg:deb/ubuntu/netty?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/jammy`Other threats	Affected 1:4.1.48-4 – 1:4.1.48-4+deb11u2ubuntu0.2+esm1 10 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 24.04 LTSnetty`pkg:deb/ubuntu/netty?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/noble`Other threats	Affected 1:4.1.48-7 – 1:4.1.48-9ubuntu0.2+esm2 11 affected builds	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in Netty version 4.2.18.Final and later. Users should upgrade to version 4.2.18.Final or newer to address this vulnerability. Since this is not a cloud service, remediation depends on applying the official patch by upgrading the affected software versions.

Description

Netty versions from 4.2.11.Final up to but not including 4.2.18.Final contain an incomplete hostname verification fix in the QUIC certificate verification path when using a plain X509TrustManager. This flaw allows attackers on the network path to bypass hostname authentication by presenting a certificate chain for a wrong hostname that the trust manager accepts. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 7.5, indicating a medium severity level.

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 18 Oct 2026, 01:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats