CVE-2026-3833
Gnutls Certificate Policy Bypass via Case-Sensitive Name Constraints
Publication date: 2026-04-30
Last updated on: 2026-05-03
Assigner: Red Hat, Inc.
Description
Description
CVSS Scores
EPSS Scores
| Probability: | |
| Percentile: |
Meta Information
Affected Vendors & Products
| Vendor | Product | Version / Range |
|---|---|---|
| gnutls | gnutls | * |
Helpful Resources
Exploitability
| CWE ID | Description |
|---|---|
| CWE-178 | The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results. |
Attack-Flow Graph
AI Powered Q&A
Can you explain this vulnerability to me?
The CVE-2026-3833 vulnerability in GnuTLS is caused by a flaw in how the software compares name constraints in X.509 certificates. Specifically, GnuTLS performs case-sensitive comparisons of DNS or email labels within nameConstraints without normalizing the case. This means that if a leaf certificate's Subject Alternative Name (SAN) differs only in letter casing from an excluded or permitted value, it may be incorrectly accepted.
An attacker can exploit this by crafting a certificate with case variations in the SAN, bypassing security policies that should reject such certificates. This leads to a certificate verification bypass, undermining the intended security boundaries enforced by nameConstraints.
How can this vulnerability impact me? :
This vulnerability can allow a remote attacker to bypass security policies in GnuTLS by presenting a certificate that should be rejected but is instead accepted due to case-sensitive comparison flaws.
As a result, unauthorized access or information disclosure could occur because the system may trust malicious certificates that violate nameConstraints.
How can this vulnerability be detected on my network or system? Can you suggest some commands?
This vulnerability involves a case-sensitive comparison flaw in GnuTLS's handling of nameConstraints in certificates, specifically in the Subject Alternative Name (SAN) fields for DNS or email addresses.
To detect this vulnerability on your system, you would need to analyze certificates processed by GnuTLS and check if leaf certificates with SAN entries differing only by case from excluded or permitted subtrees are being incorrectly accepted.
While no specific commands are provided in the resources, a practical approach would be to use tools that can inspect certificate chains and their nameConstraints, such as OpenSSL commands to examine certificates, combined with monitoring GnuTLS logs for certificate verification results.
- Use OpenSSL to inspect certificates: `openssl x509 -in certificate.pem -text -noout` to review SAN entries and nameConstraints.
- Monitor GnuTLS-based applications for acceptance of certificates with SAN entries that differ only in case from excludedSubtrees or permittedSubtrees.
- If possible, enable verbose logging or debugging in GnuTLS to capture certificate verification details.
What immediate steps should I take to mitigate this vulnerability?
Immediate mitigation steps involve updating GnuTLS to a version where this vulnerability is fixed, as the root cause is a flaw in the string comparison function used for nameConstraints.
Until an update is applied, consider implementing additional certificate validation checks outside of GnuTLS that normalize case in nameConstraints comparisons to prevent policy bypass.
Also, review and restrict the use of certificates relying on nameConstraints for security, and monitor for suspicious certificates with SAN entries differing only by case.
How does this vulnerability affect compliance with common standards and regulations (like GDPR, HIPAA)?:
This vulnerability in GnuTLS allows an attacker to bypass certificate policy checks by exploiting case-sensitive comparisons in nameConstraints. This can lead to unauthorized access or information disclosure by accepting certificates that should be rejected.
Such unauthorized access or information disclosure could potentially impact compliance with common standards and regulations like GDPR or HIPAA, which require strict controls on data access and protection of sensitive information.
However, the provided information does not explicitly describe the direct impact on compliance frameworks or specific regulatory requirements.