CVE-2026-27017: uTLS has a Chrome Parrot Fingerprint Vulnerability due to GREASE ECH Cipher Suite Mismatch
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 9/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.17% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
- Fixed version: refraction-networking utls 1.8.1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to refraction-networking utls 1.8.1 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. Versions 1.6.0 through 1.8.0 contain a fingerprint mismatch with Chrome when using GREASE ECH, related to cipher suite selection. When Chrome selects the preferred cipher suite in the outer ClientHello and for ECH, it does so consistently based on hardware support—for example, if it prefers AES for the outer cipher suite, it also uses AES for ECH. However, the Chrome parrot in uTLS hardcodes AES preference for outer cipher suites but selects the ECH cipher suite randomly between AES and ChaCha20. This creates a 50% chance of selecting ChaCha20 for ECH while using AES for the outer cipher suite, a combination impossible in Chrome. This issue only affects GREASE ECH; in real ECH, Chrome selects the first valid cipher suite when AES is preferred, which uTLS handles correctly. This issue has been fixed in version 1.8.1.
- Published
- Feb 19, 2026
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.1% · 7th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-1240
Report tools
Action score
9
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 9 / 40 · 2.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.1%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 2.3
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| refraction-networking | utls | cpe:2.3:a:refraction-networking:utls |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- refraction-networking utls1.6.0 and later · before 1.8.1
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
refraction-networking utls
- >= 1.6.0, < 1.8.1affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/refraction-networking/utls | from 1.6.0 · before 1.8.1 | 1.8.1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 16.0 | v2ray-core | before 5.53.0-bp160.1.1 | 5.53.0-bp160.1.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | v2ray-core | before 5.51.2-1.1 | 5.51.2-1.1 |
Same product
refraction-networking: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-26994uTLS ServerHellos are accepted without checking TLS 1.3 downgrade canaries26Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| refraction-networking utls | 1.8.1 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| Go:github.com/refraction-networking/utls | 1.8.1 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:v2ray-core | 5.51.2-1.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- Integrity
- Availability
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- P
- Scope
- X
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-1240 · Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky ImplementationCVSS vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.