CVE-2026-90651: Socket Firewall (socketdev/socket-registry-firewall) in registry mode before 2.0.0 does not verify upstream TLS certificates by default.
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 32/100)
- 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: 0.20% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
- Fixed version: Socket Socket Firewall 2.0.0.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to Socket Socket Firewall 2.0.0 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
Socket Firewall (socketdev/socket-registry-firewall) in registry mode before 2.0.0 does not verify upstream TLS certificates by default. When the api_ssl_verify and upstream_ssl_verify configuration keys are omitted from socket.yml, the generated configuration sets SOCKET_API_SSL_VERIFY='false' and UPSTREAM_SSL_VERIFY='false', and the OpenResty/Lua HTTP client used for outbound requests accepts any certificate, including self-signed and otherwise untrusted certificates, without validating the chain. An attacker positioned to intercept traffic between Socket Firewall and the Socket API or an upstream package registry can present a crafted certificate and modify responses in transit, including substituting malicious package content or altering the allow/block decisions the firewall enforces. Setting api_ssl_verify: true and upstream_ssl_verify: true enables verification; however, in versions before 1.1.334, the generated nginx configuration did not emit lua_ssl_trusted_certificate, and thus verification could not be used successfully without manually patching the generated configuration. Version 2.0.0 changes the default for both settings to true.
- Published
- Sep 12, 2026
- Updated
- Sep 22, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.2% · 10th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-295
Report tools
Action score
32
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 32 / 40 · 8.1 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.2%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · mitre
- 8.1
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
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.
—
Check your site's encryption
This vulnerability is about certificate validation or weak cryptography. The free SSL checker tests your certificate, enabled TLS versions and weak ciphers.
Run the SSL checkVersions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (mitre). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Socket Socket Firewall
- before 2.0.0affected · semver
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket Socket Firewall | 2.0.0 | Vendor (CNA) |
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.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
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.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- low · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- low · the service can be disrupted
Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- Low
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-295 · Improper Certificate ValidationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:L
nvd-secondary
Root cause
A certificate validation error is silently swallowed instead of terminating the connection. Often, code added for a test environment makes its way into production.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-295 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
override fun checkServerTrusted(chain: Array<X509Certificate>, type: String) {
// Left empty for the test environment
}Fixed
val client = OkHttpClient.Builder()
.certificatePinner(
CertificatePinner.Builder()
.add("api.sirius.example", "sha256/…")
.build()
).build()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
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.