VulnerabilityPublished 14 Sep 2026Updated 9 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-123613: Rustls · TLS 1.3 handshake messages incorrectly accepted across encryption level boundaries

Affects rustlsSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-61730

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-123613· Medium 6.9

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 0.23.45 when convenient.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 11:23 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 4.0	6.9
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 3.1	5.3

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.23.45

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
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: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 8 Nov 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 8 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 rustls to 0.23.45.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
crates.iorustls`pkg:cargo/rustls`Other threats	Affected >=0.23.13 <0.23.45	Fixed in 0.23.45

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available in rustls version 0.23.45 that fixes this issue. Users should upgrade to version 0.23.45 or later to remediate this vulnerability.

Description

Rustls versions from 0.23.13 up to but not including 0.23.45 improperly accept TLS 1.3 handshake messages sent at incorrect encryption levels when they follow a key-changing message in the same record. This violates RFC 8446 section 5.1, which mandates terminating the connection with an "unexpected_message" alert in such cases. The flaw allows plaintext handshake messages to be accepted without rejection, though the handshake transcript remains authenticated, limiting the attacker's ability to alter or complete the handshake.

Impact

An attacker can send handshake messages that should be encrypted in plaintext without rustls rejecting the connection. However, because the handshake transcript is authenticated, the attacker cannot alter or complete the handshake. There is no impact on integrity or availability, and confidentiality impact is limited to acceptance of plaintext handshake messages that should have been encrypted.

Summary

Rustls incorrectly accepts TLS 1.3 handshake messages sent at the wrong encryption level if they follow a key-changing message within the same record. This behavior breaches RFC 8446 section 5.1 requirements, which specify that handshake messages must not span key changes and that violations should trigger connection termination with an "unexpected_message" alert. Despite this acceptance, the handshake transcript remains authenticated, preventing network attackers from modifying or completing the handshake. The vulnerability is analogous to Go's GO-2026-4340 (CVE-2025-61730).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Nov 2026, 10:34 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats