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 0.14% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-12249High confidence
Canonical ADSys Trust Store Poisoning via Plaintext HTTP Certificate Auto-Enrollment
Unknown · Unknown
9.0CriticalCVSS 4.0
Within 72 hours
Patch availableCritical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Unknown Unknown and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Open-source package ranges3 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gogithub.com/ubuntu/adsys | SEMVER: introduced 0; fixed 0.16.3-0.20250318112551-8b1939f96d38 | 0.16.3-0.20250318112551-8b1939f96d38 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 28 Sep 2026 |
| Gogithub.com/ubuntu/adsys | SEMVER: introduced 0 | Not stated | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 28 Sep 2026 |
| gogithub.com/ubuntu/adsys | < 0.16.3-0.20250318112551-8b1939f96d38 | 0.16.3-0.20250318112551-8b1939f96d38 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 21 Sep 2026 |
Critical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
Patch available01
What, why and how
An issue was discovered in Canonical ADSys upstream versions through v0.16.2. During Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) certificate auto-enrollment via the vendored Samba client script (internal/policies/certificate/python/vendor_samba/gp/gp_cert_auto_enroll_ext.py), ADSys utilizes a plaintext HTTP connection (http://) instead of a secure HTTPS connection (https://) to request the CA certificate from the Active Directory Certificate Services server (GetCACert). An unauthenticated network attacker positioned between the managed Ubuntu host and the configured AD CS CA hostname can conduct a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack. By intercepting the plaintext HTTP request, the attacker can supply an arbitrary, attacker-controlled Root CA certificate. Because the system automatically accepts this certificate and registers it into the local system trust store via update-ca-certificates, this results in system-wide trust store poisoning. Consequently, TLS clients utilizing the operating system trust store on the affected machine will accept rogue certificates for arbitrary domains, enabling persistent decryption and interception of subsequent TLS connections. This issue is resolved in version v0.16.3.
What
An issue was discovered in Canonical ADSys upstream versions through v0.16.2. During Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) certificate auto-enrollment via the vendored Samba client script (internal/policies/certificate/python/vendor_samba/gp/gp_cert_auto_enroll_ext.py), ADSys utilizes a plaintext HTTP connection (http://) instead of a secure HTTPS connection (https://) to request the CA certificate from the Active Directory Certificate Services server (GetCACert). An unauthenticated network attacker positioned between the managed Ubuntu host and the configured AD CS CA hostname can conduct a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack. By intercepting the plaintext HTTP request, the attacker can supply an arbitrary, attacker-controlled Root CA certificate. Because the system automatically accepts this certificate and registers it into the local system trust store via update-ca-certificates, this results in system-wide trust store poisoning. Consequently, TLS clients utilizing the operating system trust store on the affected machine will accept rogue certificates for arbitrary domains, enabling persistent decryption and interception of subsequent TLS connections. This issue is resolved in version v0.16.3.
Why
The product has two different sources of the same data or information, but it uses the source that has less support for verification, is less trusted, or is less resistant to attack.
How
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.
What
An issue was discovered in Canonical ADSys upstream versions through v0.16.2. During Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) certificate auto-enrollment via the vendored Samba client script (internal/policies/certificate/python/vendor_samba/gp/gp_cert_auto_enroll_ext.py), ADSys utilizes a plaintext HTTP connection (http://) instead of a secure HTTPS connection (https://) to request the CA certificate from the Active Directory Certificate Services server (GetCACert). An unauthenticated network attacker positioned between the managed Ubuntu host and the configured AD CS CA hostname can conduct a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack. By intercepting the plaintext HTTP request, the attacker can supply an arbitrary, attacker-controlled Root CA certificate. Because the system automatically accepts this certificate and registers it into the local system trust store via update-ca-certificates, this results in system-wide trust store poisoning. Consequently, TLS clients utilizing the operating system trust store on the affected machine will accept rogue certificates for arbitrary domains, enabling persistent decryption and interception of subsequent TLS connections. This issue is resolved in version v0.16.3.
Why
The product has two different sources of the same data or information, but it uses the source that has less support for verification, is less trusted, or is less resistant to attack.
How
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.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Use of Less Trusted Source → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-348 ↗
CWE-348: Use of Less Trusted Source. The product has two different sources of the same data or information, but it uses the source that has less support for verification, is less trusted, or is less resistant to attack.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/S:N/AU:Y/R:I/V:D/RE:L/U:RedCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCHighSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SIHighSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SAHighSubsequent-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- 0.13.0 < 0.16.3
- Fixed
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 22 Jun 2026 · Last source change 22 Jun 2026, 17:30 UTC · CWE-348 · Use of Less Trusted Source
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-38297
Product sourceUnavailable
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.