Overview 3 matches · 0 in Waratek scope · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
3matches
0in Waratek scope0.0%
0protected0.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
0public PoC0.0%
0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek
0
0.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
0
0.0%
Outside Waratek scope
0
0.0%
Not applicable
3
100.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
3
100.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
3
100.0%
split by
peak 2 / month
Dec 25Jan 26Feb 26
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-68121 | Critical | 2026-02-05 | Not applicable | No public exploit | During session resumption in crypto/tls, if the underlying Config has its ClientCAs or RootCAs fields mutated between the initial handshake and the resumed handshake, the resumed handshake may succeed when it should have failed. This may happen when a user calls Config.Clone and mutates the returned Config, or uses Config.GetConfigForClient. This can cause a client to resume a session with a server that it would not have resumed with during the initial handshake, or cause a server to resume a session with a client that it would not have resumed with during the initial handshake. |
| CVE-2025-61732 | High | 2026-02-05 | Not applicable | No public exploit | A discrepancy between how Go and C/C++ comments were parsed allowed for code smuggling into the resulting cgo binary. |
| CVE-2025-61727 | Medium | 2025-12-03 | Not applicable | No public exploit | An excluded subdomain constraint in a certificate chain does not restrict the usage of wildcard SANs in the leaf certificate. For example a constraint that excludes the subdomain test.example.com does not prevent a leaf certificate from claiming the SAN *.example.com. |