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 0.21% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-90651High confidence
Socket Socket Firewall: Improper Certificate Validation
Socket · Socket Firewall
8.1HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, 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 Socket Socket Firewall 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.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Socket Firewall (socketdev/socket-registry-firewall) in registry mode before 2.0.0 does not verify upstream TLS certificates by default. When the api_ssl_verify and upstream_ssl_verify configuration keys are omitted from socket.yml, the generated configuration sets SOCKET_API_SSL_VERIFY='false' and UPSTREAM_SSL_VERIFY='false', and the OpenResty/Lua HTTP client used for outbound requests accepts any certificate, including self-signed and otherwise untrusted certificates, without validating the chain. An attacker positioned to intercept traffic between Socket Firewall and the Socket API or an upstream package registry can present a crafted certificate and modify responses in transit, including substituting malicious package content or altering the allow/block decisions the firewall enforces. Setting api_ssl_verify: true and upstream_ssl_verify: true enables verification; however, in versions before 1.1.334, the generated nginx configuration did not emit lua_ssl_trusted_certificate, and thus verification could not be used successfully without manually patching the generated configuration. Version 2.0.0 changes the default for both settings to true.
What
Socket Firewall (socketdev/socket-registry-firewall) in registry mode before 2.0.0 does not verify upstream TLS certificates by default. When the api_ssl_verify and upstream_ssl_verify configuration keys are omitted from socket.yml, the generated configuration sets SOCKET_API_SSL_VERIFY='false' and UPSTREAM_SSL_VERIFY='false', and the OpenResty/Lua HTTP client used for outbound requests accepts any certificate, including self-signed and otherwise untrusted certificates, without validating the chain. An attacker positioned to intercept traffic between Socket Firewall and the Socket API or an upstream package registry can present a crafted certificate and modify responses in transit, including substituting malicious package content or altering the allow/block decisions the firewall enforces. Setting api_ssl_verify: true and upstream_ssl_verify: true enables verification; however, in versions before 1.1.334, the generated nginx configuration did not emit lua_ssl_trusted_certificate, and thus verification could not be used successfully without manually patching the generated configuration. Version 2.0.0 changes the default for both settings to true.
Why
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
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
Socket Firewall (socketdev/socket-registry-firewall) in registry mode before 2.0.0 does not verify upstream TLS certificates by default. When the api_ssl_verify and upstream_ssl_verify configuration keys are omitted from socket.yml, the generated configuration sets SOCKET_API_SSL_VERIFY='false' and UPSTREAM_SSL_VERIFY='false', and the OpenResty/Lua HTTP client used for outbound requests accepts any certificate, including self-signed and otherwise untrusted certificates, without validating the chain. An attacker positioned to intercept traffic between Socket Firewall and the Socket API or an upstream package registry can present a crafted certificate and modify responses in transit, including substituting malicious package content or altering the allow/block decisions the firewall enforces. Setting api_ssl_verify: true and upstream_ssl_verify: true enables verification; however, in versions before 1.1.334, the generated nginx configuration did not emit lua_ssl_trusted_certificate, and thus verification could not be used successfully without manually patching the generated configuration. Version 2.0.0 changes the default for both settings to true.
Why
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
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 → Improper Certificate Validation → 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
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-295 ↗
CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation. The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: 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.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ALowAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a limited 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
- Socket Firewall: 0 < 2.0.0
- 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 12 Sept 2026 · Last source change 14 Sept 2026, 18:15 UTC · CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-76925
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-76925 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-76925"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.