undici vulnerable to Denial of Service via TLS 1.2 certificate-changing renegotiation (CVE-2026-87018)
Published Last modified Sources: Red Hat, OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
What is affected, what to do
A flaw was found in undici. A remote server can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) by initiating a Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation and presenting a certificate with a mismatched hostname.
Update Undici to version 6.29.1, Undici to version 7.30.1, Undici to version 8.12.2.
- Affected
- Undici
lt 4.2.1..6.29.1 - Undici
lt 7.0.0..7.30.1 - Undici
lt 8.0.0..8.12.2
- Undici
- Fixed in
- Undici
6.29.1 - Undici
7.30.1 - Undici
8.12.2
- Undici
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
7.5
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v3
7.5
CVSS v3
Severity High on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: Red Hat, OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
0.2 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 8.4
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- 68.06 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- no public PoC known
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- 7.5 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- 7.5
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- 0.2 %
- 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- 8.4
- Low — this CVE sits in the lower 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
- CISA assessment (SSVC)
- Exploitation: none known · automatable · Technical impact: partial
- Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 16 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-248, CWE-617
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
A flaw was found in undici. A remote server can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) by initiating a Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation and presenting a certificate with a mismatched hostname. Because the client application fails to properly handle the resulting verification error, an uncaught assertion is triggered, terminating the client process and disrupting active network requests.
Source: redhat_csaf, OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), GitHub Security Advisories, NVD (NIST), cvelistv5
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| undici | undici |
|
|
| nodejs | undici |
|
|
| npm | undici |
|
|
Vendors and products
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-248Uncaught Exception
Base
An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.
Entry at MITRE CWE-248CWE-617Reachable Assertion
Base
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
Entry at MITRE CWE-617
References & sources
- github.comnodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-qrxm-fqhp-jwvmVendor advisory, web
- cna.openjsf.orgsecurity-advisories.htmlVendor advisory, web
- NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-87018advisory
- github.comnodejs/undici/commit/12cfd96c3f430897656e3edc1c5e02be8c1cd309web
- github.comnodejs/undici/commit/b40fbfc0651703cf9fa9f6ced68b679f28d8bb28web
- github.comnodejs/undici/commit/e257e9f8fb42eedd50727b9cf65e548c8925e4a8web
- github.comnodejs/undicipackage
- github.comnodejs/undici/releases/tag/v6.29.1web
- github.comnodejs/undici/releases/tag/v7.30.1web
- github.comnodejs/undici/releases/tag/v8.12.2web
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).
Initial analysis by NVDNVD
Newly listed as affected:- Nodejs undici (7.0.0 – before 7.30.1; 8.0.0 – before 8.12.2; 4.2.1 – before 6.29.1)
Show 3 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Product configuration added —OR *cpe:2.3:a:nodejs:undici:*:*:*:*:*:node.js:*:* versions from (including) 7.0.0 up to (excluding) 7.30.1 *cpe:2.3:a:nodejs:undici:*:*:*:*:*:node.js:*:* versions from (including) 8.0.0 up to (excluding) 8.12.2 *cpe:2.3:a:nodejs:undici:*:*:*:*:*:node.js:*:* versions from (including) 4.2.1 up to (excluding) 6.29.1Reference type added —openjs: https://cna.openjsf.org/security-advisories.html Types: Vendor AdvisoryReference type added —openjs: https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-qrxm-fqhp-jwvm Types: Vendor AdvisorySource identifier: nvd@nist.gov
Record modifiedCISA ADP
CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: none known, automatable: yes
Show the original change
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After SSVC assessment added —{"id":"CVE-2026-87018","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"yes"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-10-16T20:01:12.990357Z"}Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0
ReceivedOpenJS Foundation
CVSS V3.1: AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Weakness type: CWE-248, CWE-617
Description added or changed
Show 7 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Description added —undici is an HTTP client library for Node.js. In versions 4.2.1 through 6.29.0, 7.0.0 through 7.30.0, and 8.0.0 through 8.12.1, the client process crashes when a TLS 1.2 server renegotiates after the connection is established and presents a different, CA-trusted certificate whose hostname does not match the requested host. Node.js re-runs hostname verification on the renegotiated handshake and destroys the socket with a certificate-altname error, but undici's established-socket error handler asserted that this error code could never occur, so the peer-controlled error became an uncaught assertion that terminates the Node.js process, affecting both the HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 paths. A malicious or compromised HTTPS endpoint reached through undici or the global fetch() can crash the client with a single server-initiated renegotiation, taking down all in-flight requests and background work in the process, and exploitation needs no CA compromise because the attacker controls the endpoint and can present two ordinary valid certificates. Only TLS 1.2 is affected, since TLS 1.3 does not support renegotiation. The issue is fixed in undici 6.29.1, 7.30.1, and 8.12.2, and users should upgrade to one of those versions or later. As a workaround, restrict outbound connections to TLS 1.3 so renegotiation cannot occur, when the target endpoints support it.CVSS added —AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HWeakness type (CWE) added —CWE-248Weakness type (CWE) added —CWE-617Affected versions (publisher) added —New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/87xxx/CVE-2026-87018.json">CVE-2026-87018</a>Reference added —https://cna.openjsf.org/security-advisories.htmlReference added —https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-qrxm-fqhp-jwvmSource identifier: ce714d77-add3-4f53-aff5-83d477b104bb
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-2026-87018"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-87018.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-87018 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>