CVE-2026-14457 (GCVE-0-2026-14457)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-25 12:58 – Updated: 2026-08-25 14:13
VLAI
Title
RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate
Summary
Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally, a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and also sends the typically omitted "signature_algorithms_cert" TLS extension. Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible. CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference Description: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests that key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration is to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or signed by any convenient CA). When the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the "signature_algorithms_cert" extension is handled reliably even without the fix, and peer clients or servers that don't support raw public keys may be able to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding certificate or its public key. Deployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate need to upgrade to an updated release as noted below. FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
SSVC
Exploitation: none Automatable: yes Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-08-25 14:13 UTC
CWE
  • CWE-476 - NULL Pointer Dereference
Assigner
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version CPE status
OpenSSL OpenSSL Affected: 4.0.0 , < 4.0.2 (semver)
Affected: 3.6.0 , < 3.6.4 (semver)
Affected: 3.5.0 , < 3.5.8 (semver)
Affected: 3.4.0 , < 3.4.7 (semver)
guessed Create a notification for this product.
Date Public
2026-08-25 11:36
Credits
Filipe Casal (Trail of Bits) Viktor Dukhovni
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "LOW",
              "attackVector": "NETWORK",
              "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
              "baseScore": 7.5,
              "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
              "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
              "integrityImpact": "NONE",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "NONE",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2026-14457",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "yes"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2026-08-25T14:13:25.034178Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-08-25T14:13:27.811Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "OpenSSL",
          "vendor": "OpenSSL",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "4.0.2",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "4.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.6.4",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.6.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.5.8",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.5.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.4.7",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.4.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Filipe Casal (Trail of Bits)"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "remediation developer",
          "value": "Viktor Dukhovni"
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2026-08-25T11:36:16.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\u003cbr\u003eenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\u003cbr\u003ea NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\u003cbr\u003ealso sends the typically omitted \"signature_algorithms_cert\" TLS extension.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\u003cbr\u003ean application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\u003cbr\u003ethat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\u003cbr\u003eis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\u003cbr\u003esigned by any convenient CA).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\u003cbr\u003e\"signature_algorithms_cert\" extension is handled reliably even without the\u003cbr\u003efix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\u003cbr\u003eable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\u003cbr\u003ecertificate or its public key.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\u003cbr\u003eneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\u003cbr\u003eis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
            }
          ],
          "value": "Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\nenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\na NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\nalso sends the typically omitted \"signature_algorithms_cert\" TLS extension.\n\nImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\nan application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\n\nDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\nthat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\nis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\nsigned by any convenient CA).\n\nWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\n\"signature_algorithms_cert\" extension is handled reliably even without the\nfix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\nable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\ncertificate or its public key.\n\nDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\nneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\n\nFIPS impact: no\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\nis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "format": "other",
          "other": {
            "content": {
              "text": "Low"
            },
            "type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-476",
              "description": "CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-08-25T12:58:29.349Z",
        "orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
        "shortName": "openssl"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"
        },
        {
          "name": "4.0.2 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/dad836b071da6579510c968615848ba03cac593b"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.6.4 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/581aaa0f0a35d214740f0fe1f5283ec41f1212e1"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.5.8 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d0af20478688a6aa2f59d61caa3f82136b181d7f"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.4.7 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/1e8c398db67404babd3e5af999bb6bd86f720c76"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
    "assignerShortName": "openssl",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-14457",
    "datePublished": "2026-08-25T12:58:29.349Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-07-02T08:37:07.046Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-08-25T14:13:27.811Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "epss": {
      "cve": "CVE-2026-14457",
      "date": "2026-08-27",
      "epss": "0.00984",
      "percentile": "0.59772"
    },
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2026-14457\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"published\":\"2026-08-25T13:17:49.533\",\"lastModified\":\"2026-08-25T14:16:49.727\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Received\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\\nenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\\na NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\\nalso sends the typically omitted \\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" TLS extension.\\n\\nImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\\nan application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\\n\\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\\n\\nDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\\nthat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\\nis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\\nsigned by any convenient CA).\\n\\nWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\\n\\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" extension is handled reliably even without the\\nfix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\\nable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\\ncertificate or its public key.\\n\\nDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\\nneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\\n\\nFIPS impact: no\\n\\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\\nis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\"}],\"affected\":[{\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"affectedData\":[{\"vendor\":\"OpenSSL\",\"product\":\"OpenSSL\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"4.0.0\",\"lessThan\":\"4.0.2\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"},{\"version\":\"3.6.0\",\"lessThan\":\"3.6.4\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"},{\"version\":\"3.5.0\",\"lessThan\":\"3.5.8\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"},{\"version\":\"3.4.0\",\"lessThan\":\"3.4.7\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]}]}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H\",\"baseScore\":7.5,\"baseSeverity\":\"HIGH\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"scope\":\"UNCHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"integrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"HIGH\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":3.9,\"impactScore\":3.6}],\"ssvcV203\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"ssvcData\":{\"timestamp\":\"2026-08-25T14:13:25.034178Z\",\"id\":\"CVE-2026-14457\",\"options\":[{\"exploitation\":\"none\"},{\"automatable\":\"yes\"},{\"technicalImpact\":\"partial\"}],\"role\":\"CISA Coordinator\",\"version\":\"2.0.3\"}}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-476\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/1e8c398db67404babd3e5af999bb6bd86f720c76\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/581aaa0f0a35d214740f0fe1f5283ec41f1212e1\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d0af20478688a6aa2f59d61caa3f82136b181d7f\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/dad836b071da6579510c968615848ba03cac593b\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"}]}}",
    "redhat_vex": {
      "aggregate_severity": "Low",
      "current_release_date": "2026-08-27T08:00:35+00:00",
      "cve": "CVE-2026-14457",
      "id": "CVE-2026-14457",
      "initial_release_date": "2026-08-25T00:00:00+00:00",
      "product_status:fixed": "6",
      "product_status:known_affected": "17",
      "product_status:known_not_affected": "65",
      "product_status:under_investigation": "9",
      "source": "Red Hat CSAF VEX",
      "status": "final",
      "title": "openssl: RPK server signature algorithm selection can dereference a missing certificate",
      "url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-14457.json",
      "version": "3"
    },
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 7.5, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"HIGH\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H\", \"integrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"NONE\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-14457\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"yes\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-08-25T14:13:25.034178Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-25T14:13:22.661Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"reporter\", \"value\": \"Filipe Casal (Trail of Bits)\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"remediation developer\", \"value\": \"Viktor Dukhovni\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/\", \"content\": {\"text\": \"Low\"}}, \"format\": \"other\"}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"OpenSSL\", \"product\": \"OpenSSL\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"4.0.0\", \"lessThan\": \"4.0.2\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.6.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.6.4\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.5.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.5.8\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.4.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.4.7\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"datePublic\": \"2026-08-25T11:36:16.000Z\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt\", \"name\": \"OpenSSL Advisory\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/dad836b071da6579510c968615848ba03cac593b\", \"name\": \"4.0.2 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/581aaa0f0a35d214740f0fe1f5283ec41f1212e1\", \"name\": \"3.6.4 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d0af20478688a6aa2f59d61caa3f82136b181d7f\", \"name\": \"3.5.8 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/1e8c398db67404babd3e5af999bb6bd86f720c76\", \"name\": \"3.4.7 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.2.0\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\\nenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\\na NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\\nalso sends the typically omitted \\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" TLS extension.\\n\\nImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\\nan application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\\n\\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\\n\\nDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\\nthat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\\nis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\\nsigned by any convenient CA).\\n\\nWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\\n\\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" extension is handled reliably even without the\\nfix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\\nable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\\ncertificate or its public key.\\n\\nDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\\nneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\\n\\nFIPS impact: no\\n\\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\\nis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\u003cbr\u003eenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\u003cbr\u003ea NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\u003cbr\u003ealso sends the typically omitted \\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" TLS extension.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\u003cbr\u003ean application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\u003cbr\u003ethat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\u003cbr\u003eis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\u003cbr\u003esigned by any convenient CA).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\u003cbr\u003e\\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" extension is handled reliably even without the\u003cbr\u003efix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\u003cbr\u003eable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\u003cbr\u003ecertificate or its public key.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\u003cbr\u003eneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\u003cbr\u003eis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-476\", \"description\": \"CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"shortName\": \"openssl\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-25T12:58:29.349Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-14457\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-25T14:13:27.811Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-07-02T08:37:07.046Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-08-25T12:58:29.349Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"openssl\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.2"
    }
  }
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.