EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 6.7Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. In version 2.3.0-beta2 and prior, when h2o is configured to listen to multiple addresses or ports with each of them using different backend servers managed by multiple entities, a malicious backend entity that also has the opportunity to observe or inject packets exchanged between the client and h2o may misdirect HTTPS requests going to other backends and observe the contents of that HTTPS request being sent.
The attack involves a victim client trying to resume a TLS connection and an attacker redirecting the packets to a different address or port than that intended by the client. The attacker must already have been configured by the administrator of h2o to act as a backend to one of the addresses or ports that the h2o instance listens to. Session IDs and tickets generated by h2o are not bound to information specific to the server address, port, or the X.509 certificate, and therefore it is possible for an attacker to force the victim connection to wrongfully resume against a different server address or port on which the same h2o instance is listening.
Once a TLS session is misdirected to resume to a server address / port that is configured to use an attacker-controlled server as the backend, depending on the configuration, HTTPS requests from the victim client may be forwarded to the attacker's server.
An H2O instance is vulnerable to this attack only if the instance is configured to listen to different addresses or ports using the listen directive at the host level and the instance is configured to connect to backend servers managed by multiple entities.
A patch is available at commit 35760540337a47e5150da0f4a66a609fad2ef0ab. As a workaround, one may stop using using host-level listen directives in favor of global-level ones.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it and apply that within your standard update timelines; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it