CVE-2026-27145
Is CVE-2026-27145 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.
public exploits
links to sources — we don’t host codeUnverified proof-of-concept code has been published. It may or may not be functional — assess before relying on it.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Low signal — verdict needed
Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
(*x509.Certificate).VerifyHostname previously called matchHostnames in a loop over all DNS Subject Alternative Name (SAN) entries. This caused strings.Split(host, ".") to execute repeatedly on the same input hostname. With a large DNS SAN list, verification costs scaled quadratically based on the number of SAN entries multiplied by the hostname's label count. Because x509.Verify validates hostnames before building the certificate chain, this overhead occurred even for untrusted certificates.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-27145)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-27145"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-27145/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-27145"></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?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
No 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.
- 0
No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-606.
- CVE-2026-1519HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 2%
If a BIND resolver is performing DNSSEC validation and encounters a maliciously crafted zone, the resolver may consume excessive CPU. Authoritative-only servers are generally unaffected, although there are circumstances where authoritative servers may make recursive queries (see: https://kb.isc.org/docs/why-does-my-authoritative-server-make-recursive-queries). This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.46, 9.20.0 through 9.20.20, 9.21.0 through 9.21.19, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.46-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.20-S1.
- CVE-2026-33800MED 6.5EPSS 0%
An Unchecked Input for Loop Condition vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (pfe) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on MX Series allows an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS).Micro-BFD session flaps generate respective up/down events which are queued by PFEMAN for processing. Especially in a Virtual-Chassis (VC) scenario with locality‑bias configured, processing takes a significant amount of time for each event. If these sessions keep flapping, new events are constantly added, and in turn PFEMAN never completes processing these events. This results in the PFEMAN watchdog timer expiring, which causes the FPC to crash and restart, representing a complete service outage. This issue only affects MX series FPCs up to and including MPC9, and LC2101/2103 and LC480. It does not affect MPC10/11, LC4800/9600, and MX304. This issue affects Junos OS on MX Series: * all versions before 23.2R2-S7, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S8, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S4, * 24.4 versions before 24.4R2-S3, * 25.2 versions before 25.2R2.
- CVE-2026-0243MED 6.5EPSS 0%
A denial of service (DoS) vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks Prisma SD-WAN ION devices enables an unauthenticated attacker in a network adjacent to a Prisma SD-WAN ION device to cause a system disruption by sending a specially crafted IPv6 packet.