Name-Constraint Inconsistency in RFC 5280 Implementation
The note describes differing TLS-library behavior when validating X.509 Name Constraints, including defects and areas RFC 5280 does not fully specify. Exploitation requires a trusted signature over chosen certificate fields, an affected validation path, and an application that uses the accepted identity for authorization.
- Products
- Apple's Security.framework, Go's crypto/x509, LibreSSL, OpenSSL, pyca/cryptography, wolfSSL
- Affected versions
- Not specified
- Fixed versions
- Not specified
- CVEs
- CVE-2026-34073, CVE-2026-3833
- Confirmed fixed CVEs
- Not specified
- Updated in this feed
- 31 Oct 2026, 08:27 UTC · Revision 1
Source evidence
Name-Constraint Inconsistency in RFC 5280 Implementation
official-cert-cc-vulnerability-notes · Original sourcePublished 13 Oct 2026, 18:27 UTC
The note describes differing TLS-library behavior when validating X.509 Name Constraints, including defects and areas RFC 5280 does not fully specify. Exploitation requires a trusted signature over chosen certificate fields, an affected validation path, and an application that uses the accepted identity for authorization.
This note covers differences in how TLS libraries interpret X.509 Name Constraints.
Go's crypto/x509
Fixed versions: Not specified
Apple's Security.framework
Fixed versions: Not specified
OpenSSL
Fixed versions: Not specified
LibreSSL
Fixed versions: Not specified
pyca/cryptography
Fixed versions: Not specified
wolfSSL
Fixed versions: Not specified
Complete source record
{
"id": "f2135eea17cc0667771011ffe18435a63f1a863f73f770f62968a1927d488ca4",
"url": "https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/573195",
"method": "llm",
"payload": {
"kind": "advisory",
"title": "Name-Constraint Inconsistency in RFC 5280 Implementation",
"summary": "The note describes differing TLS-library behavior when validating X.509 Name Constraints, including defects and areas RFC 5280 does not fully specify. Exploitation requires a trusted signature over chosen certificate fields, an affected validation path, and an application that uses the accepted identity for authorization.",
"evidence": "This note covers differences in how TLS libraries interpret X.509 Name Constraints.",
"products": [
{
"name": {
"value": "Go's crypto/x509",
"evidence": "Go's crypto/x509"
},
"prerequisites": [],
"fixed_versions": [],
"affected_versions": []
},
{
"name": {
"value": "Apple's Security.framework",
"evidence": "Apple's Security.framework"
},
"prerequisites": [],
"fixed_versions": [],
"affected_versions": []
},
{
"name": {
"value": "OpenSSL",
"evidence": "OpenSSL*"
},
"prerequisites": [],
"fixed_versions": [],
"affected_versions": []
},
{
"name": {
"value": "LibreSSL",
"evidence": "LibreSSL"
},
"prerequisites": [],
"fixed_versions": [],
"affected_versions": []
},
{
"name": {
"value": "pyca/cryptography",
"evidence": "pyca/cryptography"
},
"prerequisites": [],
"fixed_versions": [],
"affected_versions": []
},
{
"name": {
"value": "wolfSSL",
"evidence": "wolfSSL"
},
"prerequisites": [],
"fixed_versions": [],
"affected_versions": []
}
],
"severity": "unknown",
"fixed_cves": [],
"related_cves": [
{
"value": "CVE-2026-3833",
"evidence": "GnuTLS compared some names' case-sensitivity at the time of reporting (CVE-2026-3833, later fixed in 3.8.13)."
},
{
"value": "CVE-2026-34073",
"evidence": "pyca/cryptography checked DNS Name Constraints against certificate SANs but not the requested peer name (CVE-2026-34073, fixed in 46.0.6), as described in the linked vendor advisory."
}
],
"security_relevant": true,
"severity_evidence": null
},
"source_id": "official-cert-cc-vulnerability-notes",
"document_id": 23367,
"published_at": "2026-10-13T18:27:20.433+00:00"
}