HighCVE-2026-119190

Digitalbazaar Forge: Improper Certificate Validation (CVE-2026-119190)

Published 29.10.2026Last modified 29.10.2026Sources: Msrc Update Guide, Hersteller, CVE.org, OSV

Public exploit

What is affected, what to do

An exploit is publicly available. Update Digitalbazaar Forge to version 1.4.1.

Affected: Digitalbazaar Forge lt *..1.4.1
Fixed in: Digitalbazaar Forge 1.4.1

Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

Metrics

7.4

Priority

XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.

Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v3

7.4

CVSS v3

Severity High on the scale from 0 to 10.

Source: Msrc Update Guide, Hersteller, CVE.org, OSV

0.3 %

EPSS score

Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.

Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 15.9

Show all metrics

Severity: High
Priority (0–325) The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first? Read in glossary: 69.03 Methodology
Exploit maturity An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack. Read in glossary: PoC (publicly reported)
XIEM Effective CVSS XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command. Read in glossary: 7.4 Methodology
CVSS v3 CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions. Read in glossary: 7.4
EPSS score The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“. Read in glossary: 0.3 %; Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking. Read in glossary: 15.9; Elevated — this CVE ranks above at least 10% of all CVEs scored today.
KEV status The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching. Read in glossary: —
Published: 29.10.2026
CISA assessment (SSVC): Exploitation: proof of concept · not automatable · Technical impact: total; Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 29 October 2026
CWE CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect. Read in glossary: CWE-295, CWE-436

Detection rules

No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.

Classification under NIS2 and CRA

Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

NIS2 NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management. Read in glossary: High technical severity: assess and remediate the vulnerability in vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2 and document the decision.
CRA The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates. Read in glossary: From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security. Read in glossary: Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

Description

Summary

node-forge parses certificate extensions with the deprecated OIDs 2.5.29.10 and 2.5.29.13 as basicConstraints, and forge.pki.verifyCertificateChain() used the first extension with that name. A certificate with a forged deprecated-OID extension (cA TRUE) before its genuine basicConstraints extension (cA FALSE) is accepted as a CA certificate, and the same technique can hide a pathLenConstraint. Fixed in node-forge 1.4.1.

Details

lib/oids.js maps the deprecated certificate extension OIDs 2.5.29.10 and 2.5.29.13 to the name basicConstraints, the same name as the RFC 5280 extension 2.5.29.19. certificateExtensionFromAsn1() in lib/x509.js decodes extensions by name, so these extensions are decoded into the same cA and pathLenConstraint fields. cert.getExtension() returns the first extension with a matching name, and pki.verifyCertificateChain() looked up basicConstraints by name.

As a result, a certificate that contains a 2.5.29.10 (or 2.5.29.13) extension with cA TRUE before its genuine basicConstraints extension with cA FALSE is accepted as a CA certificate. The same technique can hide a CA certificate's pathLenConstraint. A deprecated-OID extension on its own also satisfies the check added for GHSA-2328-f5f3-gj25 (CVE-2026-33896) that basicConstraints is present. RFC 5280 section 4.2.1.9 defines basicConstraints only as id-ce 19 (2.5.29.19), and the path validation checks in section 6.1.4 apply to that extension.

The fix makes chain verification look up basicConstraints by OID (cert.getExtension({id: '2.5.29.19'})). This covers both the cA and the pathLenConstraint checks. Certificate parsing, the OID table and cert.getExtension('basicConstraints') are unchanged.

Patches

Fixed in node-forge 1.4.1. Chain verification now uses only the basicConstraints extension with OID 2.5.29.19.

Workarounds

None in node-forge itself. Applications that pass an options.verify callback to pki.verifyCertificateChain() (or verify to forge.tls.createConnection()) can reject chains in which a non-leaf certificate has no 2.5.29.19 extension with cA TRUE, for example with cert.getExtension({id: '2.5.29.19'}). CA operators can avoid copying unrecognized extensions from certificate requests.

Credits

WorkOS Security Team· security@workos.com (@nickcollisson-workos)

Proof of concept

Have a trusted CA issue an end-entity certificate whose extensions are, in this order: a 2.5.29.10 (or 2.5.29.13) extension with the value of a basicConstraints cA TRUE (DER 30 03 01 01 FF), then the CA's own 2.5.29.19 basicConstraints with cA FALSE, and no keyUsage. For example, openssl x509 -req -copy_extensions copy with an extensions file that sets basicConstraints = CA:FALSE copies the extension from the CSR and produces this order. Use that certificate's key to sign a leaf certificate for any name.

On node-forge <= 1.4.0, forge.pki.verifyCertificateChain(caStore, [leaf, eeCert]) accepts the chain, and eeCert.getExtension('basicConstraints') returns the 2.5.29.10 extension with cA true. The same certificate without the deprecated-OID extension is rejected ("Certificate basicConstraints indicates the certificate is not a CA."). A certificate with only the deprecated-OID extension is also accepted.

The fix adds regression tests in tests/unit/x509.js and the reporter's PoC as tests/pocs/ghsa-5x38-2vff-x55p.js.

Impact

Applications that verify certificate chains with forge.pki.verifyCertificateChain(), including TLS peer certificate verification in forge.tls, are affected.

Exploitation requires a CA trusted by the application to issue a certificate that contains the attacker-supplied deprecated-OID extension, typically a CA that copies extensions from certificate signing requests. For example, openssl x509 -req -copy_extensions copy (or copyall) with an extensions file that sets basicConstraints = CA:FALSE and no keyUsage produces such a certificate. If the issuing CA adds a keyUsage extension without keyCertSign, node-forge rejects the chain.

The holder of such a certificate can then issue certificates for any name that pki.verifyCertificateChain() accepts. In forge's own TLS stack this allows impersonating servers (or clients, where client certificates are verified) and intercepting traffic.

Source: Microsoft Security Update Guide, GitHub Security Advisories, NVD (NIST), cvelistv5, OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affected products

The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.

Affected products
		Affected versions	Fixed in
digitalbazaar	forge	`< 1.4.1`	`1.4.1`
npm	node-forge	`<= 1.4.0` `—`	`1.4.1` `1.4.1`

Vendors and products

Digitalbazaar Forge

Weakness classes (CWE)

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation
Base
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Entry at MITRE CWE-295
CWE-436Interpretation Conflict
Class
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
Entry at MITRE CWE-436

Public exploit references

Publicly reported proof-of-concepts, exploit modules and detection templates for this vulnerability. NEOSEC links to the original sources only and does not provide any exploit code.

Public exploit references

CIRCL Sightings	GitHub Security Advisories (opens in a new tab)	PoC (publicly reported)reported, not verified	30.10.2026

References & sources

github.comdigitalbazaar/forge/commit/58c06bc251856b409c30ecb35a93f5f6c9bb…x_refsource_MISC, web
github.comdigitalbazaar/forge/releases/tag/v1.4.1x_refsource_MISC, web
github.comdigitalbazaar/forge/security/advisories/GHSA-5x38-2vff-x55px_refsource_CONFIRM, web
NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-119190advisory
github.comdigitalbazaar/forgepackage

Changes to this CVE

Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).

29.10.2026Record modifiedCISA ADP

CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: proof of concept, automatable: no

New references:

https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/security/advisories/GHSA-5x38-2vff-x55p

Show 2 original changes

Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
Type	Action	Before	After
Reference	added	—	https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/security/advisories/GHSA-5x38-2vff-x55p
SSVC assessment	added	—	{"id":"CVE-2026-119190","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"poc"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"total"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-10-29T20:24:38.825329Z"}

Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

29.10.2026ReceivedGitHub

CVSS V3.1: AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Weakness type: CWE-295, CWE-436

Description added or changed

New references:

Show 8 original changes

Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
Type	Action	Before	After
Description	added	—	Forge (also called node-forge) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to 1.4.1, node-forge parsed deprecated extension OIDs 2.5.29.10 and 2.5.29.13 as basicConstraints, and pki.verifyCertificateChain() used the first extension with that name. Exploitation requires a CA trusted by the application to issue a certificate carrying an attacker-supplied deprecated-OID extension, commonly because the CA copies extensions from a certificate signing request. By placing a permissive deprecated extension before the genuine 2.5.29.19 basicConstraints extension, the certificate holder could have the certificate accepted as a CA and issue certificates for arbitrary names, enabling server or client impersonation. If the issuing CA adds a keyUsage extension without keyCertSign, node-forge rejects the chain. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.
CVSS	added	—	AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Weakness type (CWE)	added	—	CWE-295
Weakness type (CWE)	added	—	CWE-436
Affected versions (publisher)	added	—	New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/119xxx/CVE-2026-119190.json">CVE-2026-119190</a>
Reference	added	—	https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/commit/58c06bc251856b409c30ecb35a93f5f6c9bbc84a
Reference	added	—	https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/releases/tag/v1.4.1
Reference	added	—	https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/security/advisories/GHSA-5x38-2vff-x55p

Source identifier: security-advisories@github.com

Embed badge

Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.

<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-119190"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-119190.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-119190 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>