CWE-299

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "rustls-webpki"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.102.0-alpha.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.103.10"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "rustls-webpki"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.104.0-alpha.1"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.104.0-alpha.5"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-299"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-20T21:51:17Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "If a certificate had more than one `distributionPoint`, then only the first `distributionPoint` would be considered against each CRL\u0027s `IssuingDistributionPoint` `distributionPoint`, and then the certificate\u0027s subsequent `distributionPoint`s would be ignored.\n\nThe impact was that correct provided CRLs would not be consulted to check revocation. With `UnknownStatusPolicy::Deny` (the default) this would lead to incorrect but safe `Error::UnknownRevocationStatus`. With `UnknownStatusPolicy::Allow` this would lead to inappropriate acceptance of revoked certificates.\n\nThis vulnerability is thought to be of limited impact. This is because both the certificate and CRL are signed -- an attacker would need to compromise a trusted issuing authority to trigger this bug.  An attacker with such capabilities could likely bypass revocation checking through other more impactful means (such as publishing a valid, empty CRL.)\n\nMore likely, this bug would be latent in normal use, and an attacker could leverage faulty revocation checking to continue using a revoked credential.",
  "id": "GHSA-pwjx-qhcg-rvj4",
  "modified": "2026-03-25T19:56:38Z",
  "published": "2026-03-20T21:51:17Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rustls/webpki/security/advisories/GHSA-pwjx-qhcg-rvj4"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/rustls/webpki"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0049.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "webpki: CRLs not considered authoritative by Distribution Point due to faulty matching logic"
}

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-3085"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-299"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-04-01T12:15:16Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A MongoDB server under specific conditions running on Linux with TLS and CRL revocation status checking enabled, fails to check the revocation status of the intermediate certificates in the peer\u0027s certificate chain. In cases of MONGODB-X509, which is not enabled by default, this may lead to improper authentication. This issue may also affect intra-cluster authentication. This issue affects MongoDB Server v5.0 versions prior to 5.0.31, MongoDB Server v6.0 versions prior to 6.0.20, MongoDB Server v7.0 versions prior to 7.0.16 and MongoDB Server v8.0 versions prior to 8.0.4.\nRequired Configuration :\u00a0MongoDB Server must be running on Linux Operating Systems and CRL revocation status checking must be enabled",
  "id": "GHSA-v8j7-gw8h-m2j4",
  "modified": "2025-09-24T18:30:23Z",
  "published": "2025-04-01T12:30:35Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3085"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-95445"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-94417"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-299"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-09-27T10:16:59Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "When an application enables both OCSP and CRL revocation checking on one WOLFSSL_CTX or certificate manager, wolfSSL skips the CRL check for any peer certificate that carries no Authority Information Access OCSP URL, and accepts a certificate the loaded CRL lists as revoked. The soft-fail policy for a missing responder collapses the OCSP result onto success before the code decides whether the CRL fallback is still needed, so \"no responder exists\" becomes indistinguishable from \"the responder answered good\". Affected builds define both HAVE_OCSP and HAVE_CRL: --enable-ocsp --enable-crl directly, and implicitly --enable-all, --enable-distro, --enable-curl, --enable-nginx, --enable-haproxy, --enable-stunnel, --enable-lighty, --enable-wpas, --enable-strongswan, --enable-mosquitto, --enable-jni, --enable-openvpn and --enable-krb. An application is affected only if it calls both wolfSSL_CTX_EnableOCSP() (or wolfSSL_EnableOCSP() / wolfSSL_CertManagerEnableOCSP()) and wolfSSL_CTX_EnableCRL() (or the equivalents) with a CRL loaded; an application that uses OCSP stapling alone through wolfSSL_CTX_EnableOCSPStapling() is not affected, because that sets up a separate OCSP instance. The defect sits in ProcessPeerCerts() and is reachable over TLS 1.0 through TLS 1.3 and DTLS, both on a client verifying a server certificate and on a server verifying a client certificate under mutual or post-handshake authentication. When the skipped check falls on a chain certificate rather than the leaf, the unchecked intermediate is promoted into the certificate manager and stays a trusted signer for every later connection on that context, so an affected long-running process needs its WOLFSSL_CTX torn down and not only its library replaced. All wolfSSL versions from 5.9.2 and earlier are affected; on versions 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 the WOLFSSL_OCSP_CHECKALL configuration fails closed with OCSP_NEED_URL, which leaves wolfSSL_CTX_EnableOCSP() without CHECKALL as the exposed configuration on 5.9.2.",
  "id": "GHSA-vqr9-9vw2-33w6",
  "modified": "2026-09-29T21:33:06Z",
  "published": "2026-09-27T12:30:21Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94417"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/11500"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}