`CVE-2026-62243`

Severity	8.7 High CVSS 4.0 2 scores
Weakness	CWE-297
Published	22 Aug 2026
Updated	14 Oct 2026

Published 2 months ago. NVD often adds the list of affected products days or weeks after a CVE is published, and the other sources we check lag too. The scope and status here may change.

Description

Netty (io.netty:netty-handler) versions from 4.2.0.Final through 4.2.16.Final and versions through 4.1.136.Final disable TLS hostname verification on the SslProvider.OPENSSL client path when a plain (non-extended) X509TrustManager is used and Unsafe-based trust-manager wrapping is unavailable (Java 25+). In this configuration the OpenSSL client does not perform hostname verification, allowing a man-in-the-middle attacker to present a certificate issued for a different hostname that is accepted without validation. Fixed in 4.2.17.Final and 4.1.137.Final.

Exploitation status

No public exploit

No exploit has been reported in the sources we check.

CISA KEV not listed
VulnCheck KEV not listed
CISA Vulnrichment exploitation: none
Indexed PoC none indexed
EPSS 0.15% chance in 30 days

Waratek protection

No exploit published

Within Waratek scope. In the sources we check, nobody has published exploit code for this CVE or reported it being exploited.

A public code fix exists.

Protection none
Action unverified
Review automated Upstream data
Record active

Decided by	Exploit code for this candidate, published in a reviewed catalogue or a GitHub repository with 5 or more stars, or in use per CISA or VulnCheck; not only a CISA verdict, a forecast, or nothing at all
Finding	This CVE is not listed in CISA KEV or VulnCheck KEV, CISA Vulnrichment records no active exploitation, no reviewed exploit catalogue carries an entry for it, and no GitHub PoC repository for it has 5 or more stars. Nobody has published exploit code worth tracing, so it is not a candidate for a rule ahead of the ones where somebody has; an upstream fix path does exist, so the remediation half of the candidacy still holds. This is a statement about what has been published, not about whether the defect is reachable or serious.
Candidate fix	https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-p85m-gvr3-788c : the maintainers' own security advisory: names the version that fixes it, so the fix is the difference between two releases

Decided by

Exploit code for this candidate, published in a reviewed catalogue or a GitHub repository with 5 or more stars, or in use per CISA or VulnCheck; not only a CISA verdict, a forecast, or nothing at all

Finding

This CVE is not listed in CISA KEV or VulnCheck KEV, CISA Vulnrichment records no active exploitation, no reviewed exploit catalogue carries an entry for it, and no GitHub PoC repository for it has 5 or more stars. Nobody has published exploit code worth tracing, so it is not a candidate for a rule ahead of the ones where somebody has; an upstream fix path does exist, so the remediation half of the candidacy still holds. This is a statement about what has been published, not about whether the defect is reachable or serious.

Candidate fix

https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-p85m-gvr3-788c : the maintainers' own security advisory: names the version that fixes it, so the fix is the difference between two releases

CVSS

8.7 HIGH v4.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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

2 metrics

We show the highest score from the newest CVSS version. Scores from different versions can't be compared, and the first score listed is sometimes a 0.0 placeholder.

Version Score Band Vector Assigner Type

CVSS 4.0 8.7 HIGH CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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 disclosure@vulncheck.com Secondary published

CVSS 3.1 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N disclosure@vulncheck.com Secondary

Version	Score	Band	Vector	Assigner	Type
CVSS 4.0	8.7	HIGH	`CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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`	disclosure@vulncheck.com	Secondary	published
CVSS 3.1	7.5	HIGH	`CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N`	disclosure@vulncheck.com	Secondary

References

URL	Tags
https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-p85m-gvr3-788c	advisory
https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/netty-through-tls-hostname-verification-bypass

URL

Timeline

Published	2026-08-22	By the CVE Program.
NVD record modified	2026-10-14	NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

Published

2026-08-22

By the CVE Program.

NVD record modified

2026-10-14

NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

How VRT decided (20 of 24 rules ran)

20 of 24 rules ran. The rest didn't run because an earlier rule had already settled the CVE.

# Rule Outcome Status Detail

identity: Does this identifier describe a vulnerability at all? the first rule that matches decides

1 rejected no match CVE Program withdrawal of this identifier

scope: Is it a vulnerability Waratek protects? the first rule that matches decides

2 armr-patch-file no match An ARMR patch file on disk for this CVE

3 armr-secure-rule-file no match An ARMR security-rule template on disk for this CVE

4 manual-classification no match A researcher's recorded decision for this specific CVE

5 manual classification no match Manual classification of this CVE in the legacy dataset

6 non-java-upstream no match A root cause in non-Java code: an OS kernel, a C library, or a bundled runtime

7 oracle-component no match The defect being in a component of a tracked product the agent does not reach: JavaFX, the Java SE installer, the JInitiator browser plug-in, the native WebLogic proxy plug-in, or a native part of Oracle Application Server or Collaboration Suite (HTTP Server, Web Cache, Internet Directory, mail and calendar servers). Oracle gives these no CPE of their own and names them only in the description.

8 java-client-side no match Oracle's own risk-matrix note saying the CVE is reached only through untrusted code in the Java sandbox (applets, Web Start) or only through a client installation of Java, so a server running its own trusted code is not exposed

9 osv-maven no match An OSV.dev record of this CVE affecting a package published to Maven Central. When every such package is one business applications do not use (Minecraft mods and launchers, Fastjson) and no tracked product is named by CPE, it settles the CVE as Outside Waratek scope instead

10 cna-maven-package no match An affected Maven artifact named by the CNA itself

11 known-cpe-product no match An NVD CPE naming a product ARMR tracks

12 cna-cpe-product matched In scope cvelistV5 CPEs match known products: netty/netty

13 oracle-advisory-family not reached A tracked product family named in Oracle's own risk matrix. CPE cannot carry a suite name, only a module.

14 cna-named-product not reached A tracked product named in words by the CVE's own CNA, on a record with no CPE yet. Apache and Eclipse publish these on advisory day, before NVD adds CPE data.

15 non-deployable-product not reached The only affected product being a sealed appliance image, where Java runs but no -javaagent can be attached

16 unmatched-product not reached No tracked product matched above, and none present at all

disposition: What do we do about one that is? every rule runs

17 patch-hint matched Mitigation candidate References include candidate fix URL (advisory tier): https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-p85m-gvr3-788c

18 open-source-maven skipped The affected package being open source on Maven, so the fix can be read

19 poc-derivable skipped An indexed exploit clearing the evidence bar to reverse-engineer, where there is no source to read

20 no-exploit skipped Nothing to build a rule from yet: no published exploit, no CISA record of exploitation and no source-level change to read

21 secure-rule-match no match A vulnerability class already blocked by an ARMR security rule

22 exploited-no-fix-or-poc skipped Somebody exploiting this CVE (a CISA or VulnCheck KEV listing, or a CISA verdict of active exploitation), with no fix, source code or PoC to build a rule from

23 below-action-threshold no match Severity is HIGH — only MEDIUM/LOW are deprioritized

24 no-exploit-published decided it matched No exploit published No exploit code has been published, and an upstream fix path does exist, so the remediation half of the candidacy still holds.

Products the scope rules checked

The products this CVE's record names, and whether VRT tracks each one. The scope rules decided on these.

Vendor Product Tracked CPE Source

netty netty tracked cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* yaml

NVD ↗ · CVE.org ↗