Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 1.18% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · stunnel
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | stunnel4 | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3:5.56+dfsg-8 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | stunnel4 | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3:5.56+dfsg-8 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch availableA flaw was found in stunnel before 5.57, where it improperly validates client certificates when it is configured to use both redirect and verifyChain options. This flaw allows an attacker with a certificate signed by a Certificate Authority, which is not the one accepted by the stunnel server, to access the tunneled service instead of being redirected to the address specified in the redirect option. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to confidentiality.
A flaw was found in stunnel before 5.57, where it improperly validates client certificates when it is configured to use both redirect and verifyChain options. This flaw allows an attacker with a certificate signed by a Certificate Authority, which is not the one accepted by the stunnel server, to access the tunneled service instead of being redirected to the address specified in the redirect option. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to confidentiality.
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
A flaw was found in stunnel before 5.57, where it improperly validates client certificates when it is configured to use both redirect and verifyChain options. This flaw allows an attacker with a certificate signed by a Certificate Authority, which is not the one accepted by the stunnel server, to access the tunneled service instead of being redirected to the address specified in the redirect option. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to confidentiality.
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation. The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 23 Feb 2021 · Last source change 3 Aug 2024, 17:30 UTC · CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.