Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.19% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-27017High confidence
uTLS has a Chrome Parrot Fingerprint Vulnerability due to GREASE ECH Cipher Suite Mismatch
refraction-networking · utls
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-7M29-F4HW-G2VX ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
2.3LowCVSS 4.0
Scheduled
Patch availableLow technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityLow→Operational priority:Low, 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 refraction-networking utls 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.
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
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 | golang-refraction-networking-utls | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | golang-refraction-networking-utls | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | golang-refraction-networking-utls | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | golang-refraction-networking-utls | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | golang-refraction-networking-utls | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Open-source package ranges2 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/refraction-networking/utls | SEMVER: introduced 1.6.0; fixed 1.8.1 | 1.8.1 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| gogithub.com/refraction-networking/utls | >= 1.6.0, < 1.8.1 | 1.8.1 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 27 Feb 2026 |
Low technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. Versions 1.6.0 through 1.8.0 contain a fingerprint mismatch with Chrome when using GREASE ECH, related to cipher suite selection. When Chrome selects the preferred cipher suite in the outer ClientHello and for ECH, it does so consistently based on hardware support—for example, if it prefers AES for the outer cipher suite, it also uses AES for ECH. However, the Chrome parrot in uTLS hardcodes AES preference for outer cipher suites but selects the ECH cipher suite randomly between AES and ChaCha20. This creates a 50% chance of selecting ChaCha20 for ECH while using AES for the outer cipher suite, a combination impossible in Chrome. This issue only affects GREASE ECH; in real ECH, Chrome selects the first valid cipher suite when AES is preferred, which uTLS handles correctly. This issue has been fixed in version 1.8.1.
What
uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. Versions 1.6.0 through 1.8.0 contain a fingerprint mismatch with Chrome when using GREASE ECH, related to cipher suite selection. When Chrome selects the preferred cipher suite in the outer ClientHello and for ECH, it does so consistently based on hardware support—for example, if it prefers AES for the outer cipher suite, it also uses AES for ECH. However, the Chrome parrot in uTLS hardcodes AES preference for outer cipher suites but selects the ECH cipher suite randomly between AES and ChaCha20. This creates a 50% chance of selecting ChaCha20 for ECH while using AES for the outer cipher suite, a combination impossible in Chrome. This issue only affects GREASE ECH; in real ECH, Chrome selects the first valid cipher suite when AES is preferred, which uTLS handles correctly. This issue has been fixed in version 1.8.1.
Why
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. Versions 1.6.0 through 1.8.0 contain a fingerprint mismatch with Chrome when using GREASE ECH, related to cipher suite selection. When Chrome selects the preferred cipher suite in the outer ClientHello and for ECH, it does so consistently based on hardware support—for example, if it prefers AES for the outer cipher suite, it also uses AES for ECH. However, the Chrome parrot in uTLS hardcodes AES preference for outer cipher suites but selects the ECH cipher suite randomly between AES and ChaCha20. This creates a 50% chance of selecting ChaCha20 for ECH while using AES for the outer cipher suite, a combination impossible in Chrome. This issue only affects GREASE ECH; in real ECH, Chrome selects the first valid cipher suite when AES is preferred, which uTLS handles correctly. This issue has been fixed in version 1.8.1.
Why
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. 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 a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Passive interaction required
- 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-1240 ↗
CWE-1240: Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation. To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
- 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:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon 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.UIPassiveUser interaction: A user must unknowingly interact with the vulnerable system.VCLowVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VINoneVulnerable-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- 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
- utls: >= 1.6.0, < 1.8.1
- Fixed
- 1.8.1.
- 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 20 Feb 2026 · Last source change 20 Feb 2026, 15:20 UTC · CWE-1240 · Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation
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-2026-8031
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
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.