CoreDNS is a DNS server written in Go. In versions prior to 1.14.3, the gRPC, QUIC, DoH, and DoH3 transport implementations incorrectly handle TSIG authentication. For gRPC and QUIC, the server checks whether the TSIG key name exists in the configuration but never calls dns.TsigVerify() to validate the HMAC. If the key name matches a configured key, the tsigStatus field remains nil and the tsig plugin treats the request as successfully authenticated regardless of the MAC value. For DoH and DoH3, the issue is more severe: the DoHWriter.TsigStatus() method unconditionally returns nil, and the server never inspects the TSIG record at all. Any request containing a TSIG record is treated as authenticated over DoH and DoH3, even if the key name is invalid and the MAC is arbitrary.
An unauthenticated network attacker can exploit this to bypass TSIG-protected functionality such as AXFR/IXFR zone transfers, dynamic DNS updates, or other TSIG-gated plugin behavior. The DoH and DoH3 variants have a lower exploitation bar because the attacker does not need to know a valid TSIG key name.
This issue has been fixed in version 1.14.3. As a workaround, disable gRPC, QUIC, DoH, and DoH3 listeners where TSIG authentication is required, or restrict network-level access to affected transport ports to trusted sources only.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it