The certificates are technically sound but did not match the policy GoDaddy published for its Starfield and GoDaddy hierarchies. Industry rules allowed five days; by 19 October 227,422 had been revoked.
CERT/CC finds TLS libraries disagree on certificate name constraints
EditorialBy TrustList Editorial
Thirteen records across GnuTLS, OpenSSL, Go, NSS, wolfSSL, pyca/cryptography and others; fixes are out for three libraries, and CERT/CC stresses that a disagreement alone is not an exploit.
About CERT/CC finds TLS libraries disagree on certificate name constraints
CERT/CC finds TLS libraries disagree on certificate name constraints
19 October 2026: CERT/CC has published a vulnerability note, VU#948176, with 13 records showing that widely used TLS libraries apply X.509 Name Constraints differently, so a certificate name that one library rejects may be accepted by another. Fixes are out for GnuTLS, pyca/cryptography and wolfSSL, while reports against Go, Apple's Security framework, Mozilla NSS and others are still in triage or under coordination.
Not yet independently verified. The GnuTLS (3.8.13) and pyca/cryptography (46.0.6) fixes are confirmed on each project's own pages; for wolfSSL we follow its CVE record, which differs from CERT/CC's note, and several reports remain in triage or disputed. We will update this when it can be confirmed, and remove this note.
Why name constraints matter
Name Constraints are the certificate extension that keeps a subordinate certificate authority inside an allowed namespace, for example a company CA that may only issue for its own domains. If libraries disagree on what falls inside that namespace, a CA constrained to one set of names might mint a certificate that some clients accept for another. CERT/CC is careful about the risk: the records matter only when an attacker can get a trusted signature over chosen certificate fields, reach an affected validation path, and the application uses the accepted identity to make an authorisation decision. "Validator disagreement alone is not exploitation," the note says.
Status by library
- GnuTLS: case-sensitive comparison of some names, CVE-2026-3833, fixed in 3.8.13.
- pyca/cryptography: DNS constraints checked against the certificate's SANs but not the requested peer name, CVE-2026-34073, fixed in 46.0.6.
- wolfSSL: URI name constraints not enforced, CVE-2026-5263, fixed in 5.9.1 according to wolfSSL's CVE record (CERT/CC's note gives CVE-2026-3547 and 5.9.0, but that CVE is an unrelated ALPN parsing flaw); a wildcard issue addressed in PR 9991.
- OpenSSL: a fix for an @ in the URI path, query or fragment (PR 30319) is in all versions supported as of 10 September 2026; a separate userinfo report is in triage.
- AWS-LC: wildcard Common Name issue fixed; a Unicode question under coordination. s2n-tls is in triage.
- Go crypto/x509: two reports in triage; the IPv4-mapped IPv6 report was judged below Go's security bar.
- Apple Security.framework: three reports submitted in March 2026 still in triage. Mozilla NSS and LibreSSL reports are under coordination.
- Mbed TLS: non-critical Name Constraints are not enforced in the reported configuration; the vendor treats support as a feature request.
A companion note, VU#410595, covers five BoringSSL findings: two fixed in March 2026, one accepted, one disputed and one declined.
What operators can do now
CERT/CC's advice is to confirm how the libraries actually in use behave, keep leaf certificates to explicit Subject Alternative Names, and treat issuance policy at the CA as the first control. A second validator only helps if it uses the same inputs and fails closed. Teams running private PKI with constrained intermediates, common for internal services and IoT fleets, have the most reason to update the three fixed libraries and to test edge cases such as wildcards, IP addresses and URI names.
Sources
- CERT/CC: VU#948176, X.509 Name Constraints handling in TLS libraries, 19 October 2026
- CERT/CC: VU#410595, BoringSSL name constraints findings, 19 October 2026
- CVE-2026-5263: wolfSSL URI nameConstraints not enforced (CVE record) - read 23 October 2026
- GnuTLS security advisories - read 23 October 2026
- pyca/cryptography changelog, 46.0.6 - 25 March 2026
Categories & features
TrustList Weekly
The week in software and IT, in one email
The news that matters to buyers, new rankings and our own research. Every Thursday, free, and easy to leave.
You may be interested in
The warning first shipped to Enhanced Protection users and is now on by default for everyone. Single-label intranet names and local IP addresses are exempt, but internal sites on public domains are not.
Thunderbird 158.0.1 and 153.5.1 fix three high-rated flaws, including XMPP stanza injection and an NTLM memory leak; Firefox 158.0.1 and both ESRs build in the block on compromised eMudhra intermediates.
Oracle scores the Java gap 9.1 and pulls the eMudhra roots from every supported JDK line; Cisco lists Duo upgrades now, Meraki camera firmware on 18 November and IOS XR 26.4.1 on 30 November.
The Bengaluru-listed trust company says its board chose to withdraw a week after eight intermediate keys were exposed. Its G1 RSA roots keep serving customers until they are moved to partners at no cost.
The CCADB lists all eight emSign G3B and G3C issuing CAs as revoked for CA compromise on 18 October, Sectigo revoked its cross-signs a day later, and Go 1.27.3 and 1.26.10 block chains through them.
Staging issues 64-day certificates from 14 October, production follows on 10 February 2027, and fixed-day renewal scripts will break; the 45-day default is expected in 2028.
The final IR 8547 replaces the old plan to disallow 112-bit RSA and ECC in 2031 with a deprecation window to 2035, while the most sensitive federal systems must switch key exchange by the end of 2030.
More on TrustList
Everything here links back to the same verified catalogue. Pick your next stop.
- More United StatesThe ranking for this subject
- CompaniesAgencies, consultancies and IT service providers, ranked by verified reviews.
- ProductsSoftware and SaaS with pricing, features, integrations and alternatives.
- AwardsAnnual recognition decided by verified reviews and an independent jury.
- LaunchesNew products and releases, voted up by the community every day.
- AI ModelsBenchmark scores and community ratings for every major model.
- RequestsBuyers describe what they need; vendors respond directly.
- PeopleReviewers, authors and makers with public profiles.
- ComparePut up to four listings side by side before you shortlist.