Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.
Both libraries install a default access manager for client sockets — TSSLSocketFactory does so in C++, and the accessManager property does so in D — which compares the peer certificate against the host
name that was connected to. That comparison walks the subjectAltName dNSName entries first and consults the certificate Common Name afterwards. A name that does not match yields a "skip" result rather than
a rejection, so a certificate whose subjectAltName entries are all present and all non-matching falls through to the Common Name, which can then satisfy the check.
RFC 6125 section 6.4.4, and RFC 9525 section 2, require that the Common Name is not consulted when a dNSName subjectAltName is present. A certificate carrying subjectAltName entries for one name and a
Common Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.
Exploitation requires an attacker positioned on the network path who holds a certificate that chains to a certificate authority in the client's trust store and whose Common Name matches the connected host
name. Public certificate authorities have not issued on Common Name alone for many years, so this is principally a concern for deployments using a private or enterprise public-key infrastructure.
This issue affects the C++ library of Apache Thrift from 0.7.0 through 0.24.0 and the D library from 0.9.0 through 0.24.0. Users should upgrade to 0.25.0.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.9 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-10). 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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