CVE-2026-1677
CVE-2026-1677 — net: TLS 1.2 connections allowed on TLS 1.3 sockets
Zephyr sockets created with `IPPROTO_TLS_1_3` can still negotiate a TLS 1.2 connection when both TLS versions are enabled in Kconfig, because the socket-level protocol selection is not propagated to mbedTLS (e.g. via `mbedtls_ssl_conf_min_tls_version`). The ClientHello advertises both versions and the peer can establish TLS 1.2, so applications that assumed `IPPROTO_TLS_1_3` enforces TLS 1.3 may silently use TLS 1.2 and remain exposed to TLS 1.2-specific weaknesses. As a workaround, the `TLS_CIPHERSUITE_LIST` socket option can be restricted to TLS 1.3-only cipher suites.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, zephyr
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
0%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
5.3
MEDIUM
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
PoC
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.3 | CVSS 3.1 | MEDIUM | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-757
Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.
- T1600Weaken Encryption
References
1 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
- zephyrproject rtosevery CVE for this vendor
- CWE-757other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.