CVE-2026-58062
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, Stapled OCSP response accepted without binding to the checked certificate. This issue also affects Bo
CVSS
—
No CVSS
EPSS
—
KEV
—
Exploit Today
0
0-100
Published: Aug 3, 2026 · Last modified: Aug 3, 2026 · CWE-295
Not enough EPSS history yet.
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, Stapled OCSP response accepted without binding to the checked certificate. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series).
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2026-0392——
——0eParakstītājs 3.0 for Windows before version
1.10.0 retrieves and executes its automatic updates over a channel that is not
authenticated or integrity-protected. On each launch the application fetches an
update descriptor (XML) over TLS but accepts any TLS certificate (a permissive
TrustManager and a HostnameVerifier that always returns true), does not verify
any digital signature on the update descriptor, and does not verify the
Authenticode signature or a checksum of the downloaded installer before running
it. A man-in-the-middle attacker able to redirect www.eparaksts.lv can serve a
crafted update descriptor pointing to an attacker-controlled executable, which
the client downloads and executes, resulting in arbitrary code execution on the
victim host.7hCVE-2026-8763——
——0In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, Name Constraints bypass via trailing dot in rfc822Name and URI. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 1.0.2.7 (1.0.X series), 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series).8hCVE-2026-672945.9 MED19.2%
——6FreeRDP before 3.29.0 improperly validates the Extended Key Usage (EKU) purpose of the peer certificate during client-side server TLS authentication. In x509_utils_verify(), when server-purpose (X509_PURPOSE_SSL_SERVER) verification fails, the code falls back to client-purpose and any-purpose verification, so a trusted, hostname-matching certificate valid only for clientAuth can be accepted as the RDP server certificate. In environments relying on EKU separation between client and server certificates, this allows a clientAuth-only certificate issued by a trusted CA to bypass server certificate purpose validation.2dCVE-2026-672934.2 MED6.2%
——2FreeRDP before 3.29.0 (affected versions <= 3.28.0) contains an improper certificate hostname validation vulnerability. The TLS hostname matcher (tls_match_hostname() in libfreerdp/crypto/tls.c) treats a wildcard pattern such as *.example.com as matching any hostname ending in .example.com, so it incorrectly accepts a wildcard certificate for multi-label subdomains like a.b.example.com (which OpenSSL's X509_check_host() rejects). This weakens TLS server authentication under wildcard-certificate conditions.2dCVE-2026-664029.8 CRI21.3%
——6FreeRDP before 3.29.0 (affected versions <= 3.28.0) contains multiple TLS certificate identity validation weaknesses in tls_verify_certificate(), tls_match_hostname(), and x509_utils_get_dns_names(). Because FreeRDP performs custom Common Name and DNS SAN string matching instead of using OpenSSL's length-aware identity validation APIs, it (1) truncates DNS SAN values at embedded NUL bytes (accepting e.g. 'victim.example\0.attacker.example' as 'victim.example'), (2) accepts a matching Common Name even when non-matching DNS SAN entries are present, and (3) accepts IP-literal targets via DNS/CN matching without comparing iPAddress SANs. Under a trusted or misissued certificate chain, an attacker positioned to present such a certificate can bypass server identity verification, weakening TLS server authentication.2dCVE-2026-181418.2 HIG16.6%
——5A flaw was found in aap-gateway, a component of Ansible Automation Platform's Event-Driven Ansible (EDA). An unauthenticated remote attacker can bypass mutual Transport Layer Security (mTLS) authentication for event streams. This is achieved by manipulating the event stream URL and forging the HTTP Subject header. The system also inadvertently discloses the expected certificate subject in error messages, which simplifies the attack. This vulnerability allows an attacker to inject arbitrary events into EDA, potentially triggering automated workflows.3d