CVE-2026-24281
Improper Certificate Validation: is CVE-2026-24281real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real, but low real-world risk
A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Hostname verification in Apache ZooKeeper ZKTrustManager falls back to reverse DNS (PTR) when IP SAN validation fails, allowing attackers who control or spoof PTR records to impersonate ZooKeeper servers or clients with a valid certificate for the PTR name. It's important to note that attacker must present a certificate which is trusted by ZKTrustManager which makes the attack vector harder to exploit. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 3.8.6 or 3.9.5, which fixes this issue by introducing a new configuration option to disable reverse DNS lookup in client and quorum protocols.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-24281)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-24281"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-24281/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-24281"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
0 verdictsNo account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation.
- CVE-2020-0601HIGH 8.1KEVEPSS 89%
A spoofing vulnerability exists in the way Windows CryptoAPI (Crypt32.dll) validates Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) certificates.An attacker could exploit the vulnerability by using a spoofed code-signing certificate to sign a malicious executable, making it appear the file was from a trusted, legitimate source, aka 'Windows CryptoAPI Spoofing Vulnerability'.
- CVE-2022-26923HIGH 8.8KEVEPSS 83%
Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
- CVE-2022-47758CRIT 9.8Real · low riskEPSS 1%
Nanoleaf firmware v7.1.1 and below is missing TLS verification, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code via a DNS hijacking attack.
- CVE-2023-42425CRIT 9.8Real · low riskEPSS 1%
An issue in Turing Video Turing Edge+ EVC5FD v.1.38.6 allows remote attacker to execute arbitrary code and obtain sensitive information via the cloud connection components.
- CVE-2022-45597CRIT 9.8Real · low riskEPSS 1%
ComponentSpace.Saml2 4.4.0 Missing SSL Certificate Validation. NOTE: the vendor does not consider this a vulnerability because the report is only about use of certificates at the application layer (not the transport layer) and "Certificates are exchanged in a controlled fashion between entities within a trust relationship. This is why self-signed certificates may be used and why validating certificates isn’t as important as doing so for the transport layer certificates."
- CVE-2026-27137HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 1%
When verifying a certificate chain which contains a certificate containing multiple email address constraints which share common local portions but different domain portions, these constraints will not be properly applied, and only the last constraint will be considered.