CVE-2026-48057randombit botan improper certificate validation
CVE-2026-48057 is a improper certificate validation in randombit botan, rated low (2.1 on CVSS 4.0).
Why this priority: Low severity, with no exploitation signal.
Published · Updated · NVD status: Received
What it is
TLS certificates are not checked properly, so an attacker on the path can pose as the server.
How it is reached
An attacker can exploit it over the network, with an administrator account, and nobody has to click anything. Success also depends on conditions the attacker does not fully control.
What an attacker gains
The direct impact is limited: partial access to data or a partial outage. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker read or tamper with traffic, or pass a forged message as genuine. The damage can spread past the vulnerable component into others.
Is it being exploited?
There is no public report of exploitation yet.
What to do
- Upgrade randombit botan to 3.13.0 or later.
- Until it is patched, review who holds accounts that can reach it.
Description from NVD
Botan is a C++ cryptography library. Prior to 3.13.0, Botan's X.509 Distinguished Name decoder flattens the Attribute-Value Assertions in each Relative Distinguished Name and loses multi-value RDN grouping before DN name-constraint enforcement. An attacker controlling a name-constrained intermediate CA can issue a certificate with a multi-value RDN whose first Common Name matches the permitted constraint and whose second Common Name is attacker-chosen, causing the constraint check to accept the flattened first value. If the certificate contains no subjectAlternativeName extension, the second Common Name can then be accepted as a hostname; Botan does not fall back to Common Name hostname matching when any subjectAlternativeName is present. The exposure is limited to deployments using DN name constraints, which are uncommon outside internal PKIs, and to certificates without a subjectAlternativeName. This issue is fixed in version 3.13.0.
What this means for your architecture.
A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.
Components it touches
- TLS termination and service-to-service channels. The flaw sits on the network path between clients and services.
- Signature checks. The flaw sits on the network path between clients and services.
Trust boundaries in play
- Authenticated network access. An account is needed, so exposure follows who can sign in: customers, partners or staff.
- Isolation between components. The impact crosses out of the vulnerable component into others it should be isolated from.
- On the network path between clients and services. An attacker who crosses it can read or tamper with traffic, or pass a forged message as genuine.
Questions to answer about your own systems
- Where does randombit botan run in your systems, and at which version?
- Which of those instances can be reached from the internet or partner networks?
- What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?
Sources
- CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
- Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
- Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.