{"id":"CVE-2026-85088","aliases":["AZL-106548","BIT-thrift-2026-85088","DEBIAN-CVE-2026-85088","EUVD-2026-91418","GHSA-4xmj-xwhr-jcj2","MGASA-2026-0562","RHSA-2026:74369","UBUNTU-CVE-2026-85088"],"status":"published","title":"Apache Thrift, Apache Thrift: The C++ and D clients fall back to the certificate Common Name when subjectAltName entries are present but do not match","description":"Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth 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\n\nname 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\n\na 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.\n\n\n\nRFC 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\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation 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\n\nname. 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.\n\n\n\nThis 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.","severity":{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U","level":"medium","assessor":"cna","from":"cve"},"epss":{"day":"2026-11-12","score":0.0017,"percentile":0.06467,"model":"v2026.06.15"},"facts":{"in_kev":false,"known_exploited":false,"public_exploit":false,"fix_available":true},"cwes":["CWE-295","CWE-297"],"published":"2026-10-02T11:37:14Z","modified":"2026-11-02T14:16:41Z","fixes":[{"ecosystem":"Azure Linux:3","package":"thrift","fixed_in":["0.25.0-1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Bitnami","package":"thrift","fixed_in":["0.25.0"],"sources":["osv"]}],"affected":[{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Azure Linux:3","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0.25.0-1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Bitnami","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"SEMVER","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0.25.0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:12","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["0.17.0-2","0.17.0-3","0.17.0-4","0.18.1-1","0.18.1-2","0.19.0-1","0.19.0-2","0.19.0-2.1","0.19.0-2.1~exp1","0.19.0-3","0.19.0-4","0.20.0-1","0.22.0-1","0.22.0-2","0.22.0-3","0.22.0-4","0.23.0-1","0.23.0-2","0.23.0-3","0.24.0-1","0.24.0-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:13","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["0.19.0-4","0.20.0-1","0.22.0-1","0.22.0-2","0.22.0-3","0.22.0-4","0.23.0-1","0.23.0-2","0.23.0-3","0.24.0-1","0.24.0-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["0.19.0-4","0.20.0-1","0.22.0-1","0.22.0-2","0.22.0-3","0.22.0-4","0.23.0-1","0.23.0-2","0.23.0-3","0.24.0-1","0.24.0-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Mageia:10","package":"arrow","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"17.0.0-4.1.mga10"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Mageia:10","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0.25.0-1.mga10"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Mageia:10","package":"ceph","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"20.2.4-1.1.mga10"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"perl-thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.25.0-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":29},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"python3-thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.25.0-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":29},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.25.0-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":29},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"thrift-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.25.0-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":29},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"thrift-glib","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.25.0-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":29},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"thrift-qt","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.25.0-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":29},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:20.04:LTS","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["0.11.0-6","0.13.0-2build1","0.13.0-2build2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:22.04:LTS","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["0.13.0-6ubuntu1","0.13.0-6ubuntu2","0.13.0-6ubuntu3","0.13.0-7","0.16.0-2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:24.04:LTS","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["0.17.0-4","0.19.0-2","0.19.0-2build1","0.19.0-2.1build4","0.19.0-2.1build5"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.10","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["0.22.0-3ubuntu1","0.23.0-3","0.23.0-3ubuntu1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"thrift","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["0.19.0-4build1","0.22.0-3","0.22.0-3ubuntu1"]}],"products":[{"vendor":"apache software foundation","product":"apache thrift"}],"references":[{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/33otcgbqd27wf6qq810q56znzbomnhg1","tags":["vendor-advisory","web","article","report"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/zcgm7lx6037lvgvn87rc1tj3p0zhv371","tags":["vendor-advisory","web","article","report"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-85088","tags":["web","advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-4xmj-xwhr-jcj2"},{"url":"https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-85088","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://advisories.mageia.org/MGASA-2026-0562.html","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36534","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/nodwz7gjvogkkh3w1jwbsslk1c7t0727","tags":["web","article"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/lpcmo2xjfyfww474xdyyfypkqthk9s14","tags":["web","article"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/zjv6hjmhl4tb4l4l1dk4bmc2whxh0lb4","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/nxlmlhgsh7fwr4mo1fkhtkw3v266qhcx","tags":["web","article"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/s8fjltl6c1pkm7vg9v4qkr89b5b74jbg","tags":["web","article"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/lg97w2yvg3c6z06l8m5xs3j3v2m6mvj8","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/n9rogg2166hl9y4ycq5njpvnxndr8y5o","tags":["web","article"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/y05tvpv19ow44j16gtbcy9ht7lb0qjpy","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/tcg16jr59z5nry066dw7ym60vl25dxt9","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/p96mokqfy16mnqfyon46mf6g8nr9ghb6","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/shy1rrm2g383wlbdb2p7w19c868ntdjp","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/52gwhsy947hj9qhgn0dql726z1q927g4","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/3wmvtvv56rky5wtszn4zr8w12kg928qn","tags":["web","article"]},{"url":"https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/security-announce@lists.opensuse.org/message/PJ2VIEPTDKVT3ZHU4YTZOASQWMORN2PV/","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:74369","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94635","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-93926","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94634","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-93925","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94633","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85483","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85494","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-91137","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85087","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-87117","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-90440","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94650","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-96294","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94644","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85086","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-82458","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-96990","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94645","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-82459","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85493","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-96292","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-96288","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66331","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-83745","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94638","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94654","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94657","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-96277","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-86535","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-92834","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94652","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85088","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-86536","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94658","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66837","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-96289","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66859","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94646","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-96287","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-96286","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85476","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66054","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94636","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94656","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66858","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66081","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94655","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-66055","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94648","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-94653","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://images.redhat.com/","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-86537","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_74369.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545180","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66054","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66054","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/7c23sgowkb3ssmolqofqsn8wzsddvf33","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545179","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66055","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66055","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545165","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66081","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66081","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/9d51ygo6hrsdo5ndwckbwt3mnp290m57","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545175","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66331","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66331","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/971572orz86jdwlg58wqv8o50oqqb143","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545163","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66837","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66837","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/7o985t84551tpo55v6fsd3g42gs3zps1","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545169","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66858","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66858","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/6kl6g40tpl8zt3opd8fwn6bsgyddzhd5","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545172","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66859","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66859","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545042","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-82458","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-82458","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/7xqf651pvjykw0xr9vw0ooz0bwx7wzy7","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545041","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-82459","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-82459","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/zf8ppfpl6nqhp53sxnz6osnjw93g9fw2","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545142","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-83745","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-83745","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/64y7f0b89mnq4xoqcn4h26to8kskolgc","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545053","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-85086","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-85086","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/c7f9g4027ok0gocyso2y84r2mhgc2xmy","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545088","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-85088","tags":["advisory","report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545019","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-85494","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-85494","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/rm0m34gt6fh1flvt16wty559hfg191qr","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545128","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-86535","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-86535","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/94cvvzzl0rh707bn2j4zt844v547508g","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545075","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-86536","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-86536","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/xckvfky30kdnk8vqnhy0wndthvc9nymp","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545121","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-86537","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-86537","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/k14jfr1xwc0vtmm2s7xro6lt7q4y6s7m","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545066","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-90440","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-90440","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545010","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-93925","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-93925","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/b4rrkrwoyqb9g7hk58d3fx09cbvp1tg9","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545008","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-93926","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-93926","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/9353rb8mpoq4ltff88h1j2y3hfy6blgb","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545011","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-94633","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94633","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/cxkbblyht7988p2o6yvnmd6536qmt88k","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2544989","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-94635","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94635","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/ow8994gb5g8ssmmbkbl48xqb0tpvqyr3","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545160","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-94638","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94638","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/v60w786pqr7njzz9425grby8yjrgmbsj","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545138","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-94646","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94646","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/5hjh0gz8wf6bo7ydxjpqj92m42hwmfo8","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545020","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-94650","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94650","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/poskkt3p754b2f293g63934hw160o86j","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545135","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-94652","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94652","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545145","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-94654","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94654","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/kx3xdttoypl8j4dcxmqbq9dwy1w0kr7j","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545148","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-94657","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94657","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545159","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-96277","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-96277","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.apache.org/thread/k1t5r9sz7k5tn57cnf5khw2ywlxv6098","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2545035","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-96292","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-96292","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-85088","tags":["report"]}],"sources":{"cve":[{"id":"CVE-2026-85088","title":"Apache Thrift, Apache Thrift: The C++ and D clients fall back to the certificate Common Name when subjectAltName entries are present but do not match","description":"Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth 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\n\nname 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\n\na 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.\n\n\n\nRFC 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\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation 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\n\nname. 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.\n\n\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T11:37:14.749Z","modified":"2026-10-02T17:40:12.995Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U","level":"medium","assessor":"cna"}],"cwes":["CWE-295","CWE-297"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:19:52.410665Z"}],"euvd":[{"id":"EUVD-2026-91418","description":"Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth 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\n\nname 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\n\na 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.\n\n\n\nRFC 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\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation 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\n\nname. 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.\n\n\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T11:37:14Z","modified":"2026-10-02T17:40:12Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U","level":"medium"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T17:27:42.349288Z"}],"ghsa":[{"id":"GHSA-4xmj-xwhr-jcj2","title":"Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift...","description":"Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth 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\n\nname 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\n\na 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.\n\n\n\nRFC 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\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation 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\n\nname. 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.\n\n\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T12:31:18Z","modified":"2026-10-02T12:31:21Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X","level":"medium"}],"cwes":["CWE-295"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:12:43.051947Z"}],"nvd":[{"id":"CVE-2026-85088","description":"Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth 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\n\nname 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\n\na 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.\n\n\n\nRFC 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\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation 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\n\nname. 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.\n\n\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T12:17:21.8Z","modified":"2026-10-02T18:17:06.237Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X","level":"medium","assessor":"secondary"}],"cwes":["CWE-295","CWE-297"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:12:53.41762Z"}],"osv":[{"id":"DEBIAN-CVE-2026-85088","description":"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.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T12:17:21.8Z","modified":"2026-10-03T05:00:20.975579716Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X","level":"medium"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:46:05.022702Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:74369","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update","status":"published","published":"2026-10-03T10:16:53Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:43:36.90044945Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:22.928316Z"},{"id":"UBUNTU-CVE-2026-85088","description":"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.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T12:17:00Z","modified":"2026-10-17T13:01:13.444820435Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":6.9,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U","level":"medium"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:57:24.828975Z"},{"id":"AZL-106548","title":"CVE-2026-85088 affecting package thrift for versions less than 0.25.0-1","description":"Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth 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\n\nname 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\n\na 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.\n\n\n\nRFC 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\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation 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\n\nname. 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.\n\n\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T12:17:21Z","modified":"2026-11-02T14:16:41.632469502Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:28:01.408755Z"},{"id":"BIT-thrift-2026-85088","title":"Apache Thrift, Apache Thrift: The C++ and D clients fall back to the certificate Common Name when subjectAltName entries are present but do not match","description":"Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch in the C++ and D libraries of Apache Thrift.\n\n\n\nBoth 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\n\nname 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\n\na 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.\n\n\n\nRFC 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\n\nCommon Name for another is therefore accepted for a connection to the second name.\n\n\n\nExploitation 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\n\nname. 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.\n\n\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-09T10:53:03.484Z","modified":"2026-10-09T12:00:10.495950976Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:28:36.104787Z"},{"id":"MGASA-2026-0562","title":"Updated arrow, thrift, ceph packages fix security vulnerabilities","description":"The updated packages fix many security vulnerabilities. Please see the\nlinks for additional information.\n","status":"published","published":"2026-10-28T02:10:00Z","modified":"2026-10-28T02:28:14.856913643Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:49:43.795591Z"}]}}