https://cve.radiocsirt.org Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Fri, 02 Oct 2026 22:07:50 +0000 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-14094 bdu:2026-14094 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-14094 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-34073 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:25: py3-cryptography, Alpaquita:stream: py3-cryptography</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:25: py3-cryptography, Alpaquita:stream: py3-cryptography</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-34073 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/brew-ansible@10-cve-2026-34073 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Homebrew: ansible@10</p> <p>## Summary</p> <p>In versions of cryptography prior to 46.0.5, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named `bar.example.com` to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for `*.example.com`, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for `bar.example.com`.</p> <p>This behavior resulted from a gap between RFC 5280 (which defines Name Constraint semantics) and RFC 9525 (which defines service identity semantics): put together, neither states definitively whether Name Constraints should be applied to peer names. To close this gap, cryptography now conservatively rejects any validation where the peer name would be rejected by a name constraint if it were a SAN instead.</p> <p>In practice, exploitation of this bypass requires an uncommon X.509 topology, one that the Web PKI avoids because it exhibits these kinds of problems. Consequently, we consider this a medium-to-low impact severity.</p> <p>See CVE-2025-61727 for a similar bypass in Go&#39;s `crypto/x509`.</p> <p>## Remediation</p> <p>Users should upgrade to 46.0.6 or newer.</p> <p>## Attribution</p> <p>Reporter: @1seal</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Homebrew: ansible@10</p> <p>## Summary</p> <p>In versions of cryptography prior to 46.0.5, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named `bar.example.com` to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for `*.example.com`, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for `bar.example.com`.</p> <p>This behavior resulted from a gap between RFC 5280 (which defines Name Constraint semantics) and RFC 9525 (which defines service identity semantics): put together, neither states definitively whether Name Constraints should be applied to peer names. To close this gap, cryptography now conservatively rejects any validation where the peer name would be rejected by a name constraint if it were a SAN instead.</p> <p>In practice, exploitation of this bypass requires an uncommon X.509 topology, one that the Web PKI avoids because it exhibits these kinds of problems. Consequently, we consider this a medium-to-low impact severity.</p> <p>See CVE-2025-61727 for a similar bypass in Go&#39;s `crypto/x509`.</p> <p>## Remediation</p> <p>Users should upgrade to 46.0.6 or newer.</p> <p>## Attribution</p> <p>Reporter: @1seal</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/brew-ansible@10-cve-2026-34073 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0550 certfr-2026-avi-0550 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0550 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cleanstart-2026-an24336 <p><strong>Withdrawn by the publisher.</strong></p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> CleanStart: airflow-2</p> <p>Multiple security vulnerabilities affect the airflow-2 package. These issues are resolved in later releases. See references for individual vulnerability details.</p> <p><strong>Withdrawn by the publisher.</strong></p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> CleanStart: airflow-2</p> <p>Multiple security vulnerabilities affect the airflow-2 package. These issues are resolved in later releases. See references for individual vulnerability details.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cleanstart-2026-an24336 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-278253 EUVD-2026-278253 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-278253 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-34073 <p>cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. Prior to version 46.0.6, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com. This issue has been patched in version 46.0.6.</p> <p>cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. Prior to version 46.0.6, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com. This issue has been patched in version 46.0.6.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-34073 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-m959-cc7f-wv43 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: cryptography</p> <p>## Summary</p> <p>In versions of cryptography prior to 46.0.5, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named `bar.example.com` to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for `*.example.com`, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for `bar.example.com`.</p> <p>This behavior resulted from a gap between RFC 5280 (which defines Name Constraint semantics) and RFC 9525 (which defines service identity semantics): put together, neither states definitively whether Name Constraints should be applied to peer names. To close this gap, cryptography now conservatively rejects any validation where the peer name would be rejected by a name constraint if it were a SAN instead.</p> <p>In practice, exploitation of this bypass requires an uncommon X.509 topology, one that the Web PKI avoids because it exhibits these kinds of problems. Consequently, we consider this a medium-to-low impact severity.</p> <p>See CVE-2025-61727 for a similar bypass in Go&#39;s `crypto/x509`.</p> <p>## Remediation</p> <p>Users should upgrade to 46.0.6 or newer.</p> <p>## Attribution</p> <p>Reporter: @1seal</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: cryptography</p> <p>## Summary</p> <p>In versions of cryptography prior to 46.0.5, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named `bar.example.com` to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for `*.example.com`, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for `bar.example.com`.</p> <p>This behavior resulted from a gap between RFC 5280 (which defines Name Constraint semantics) and RFC 9525 (which defines service identity semantics): put together, neither states definitively whether Name Constraints should be applied to peer names. To close this gap, cryptography now conservatively rejects any validation where the peer name would be rejected by a name constraint if it were a SAN instead.</p> <p>In practice, exploitation of this bypass requires an uncommon X.509 topology, one that the Web PKI avoids because it exhibits these kinds of problems. Consequently, we consider this a medium-to-low impact severity.</p> <p>See CVE-2025-61727 for a similar bypass in Go&#39;s `crypto/x509`.</p> <p>## Remediation</p> <p>Users should upgrade to 46.0.6 or newer.</p> <p>## Attribution</p> <p>Reporter: @1seal</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-m959-cc7f-wv43 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2026-34073 msrc_CVE-2026-34073 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2026-34073 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:10454-1 <p>python311-cryptography-46.0.6-1.1 on GA media</p> <p>python311-cryptography-46.0.6-1.1 on GA media</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:10454-1 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/pysec-2026-35 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: cryptography</p> <p>cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. Prior to version 46.0.6, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com. This issue has been patched in version 46.0.6.</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: cryptography</p> <p>cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. Prior to version 46.0.6, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com. This issue has been patched in version 46.0.6.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/pysec-2026-35 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/rhsa-2026:7295 <p>cryptography: cryptography Subgroup Attack Due to Missing Subgroup Validation for SECT Curves python-cryptography: Cryptography: Security bypass due to improper DNS name constraint validation cryptography: Cryptography: Buffer overflow via non-contiguous buffer in API</p> <p>cryptography: cryptography Subgroup Attack Due to Missing Subgroup Validation for SECT Curves python-cryptography: Cryptography: Security bypass due to improper DNS name constraint validation cryptography: Cryptography: Buffer overflow via non-contiguous buffer in API</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/rhsa-2026:7295 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:21021-1 <p>Security update for python-cryptography</p> <p>Security update for python-cryptography</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:21021-1 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-34073 <p><strong>Withdrawn by the publisher.</strong></p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:20.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:24.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:25.10: python-cryptography</p> <p>cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. Prior to version 46.0.6, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com. This issue has been patched in version 46.0.6.</p> <p><strong>Withdrawn by the publisher.</strong></p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:20.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:24.04:LTS: python-cryptography, Ubuntu:25.10: python-cryptography</p> <p>cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. Prior to version 46.0.6, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the &#34;peer name&#34; presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf&#39;s parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com. This issue has been patched in version 46.0.6.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-34073 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1434 <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in IBM App Connect Enterprise Certified Container ausnutzen, um beliebigen Programmcode auszuführen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen, einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu verursachen oder Cross-Site-Scripting-Angriffe durchzuführen.</p> <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in IBM App Connect Enterprise Certified Container ausnutzen, um beliebigen Programmcode auszuführen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen, einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu verursachen oder Cross-Site-Scripting-Angriffe durchzuführen.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1434