CVE-2026-62243 — Netty 4.2.0 through 4.2.16 TLS Hostname Verification Bypass

Netty (io.netty:netty-handler) versions from 4.2.0.Final through 4.2.16.Final and versions through 4.1.136.Final disable TLS hostname verification on the SslProvider.OPENSSL client path when a plain (non-extended) X509TrustManager is used and Unsafe-based trust-manager wrapping is unavailable (Java 25+). In this configuration the OpenSSL client does not perform hostname verification, allowing a man-in-the-middle attacker to present a certificate issued for a different hostname that is accepted without validation. Fixed in 4.2.17.Final and 4.1.137.Final.

Published Aug 22, 2026Updated Aug 24, 2026Sources: cvelistV5, VulnCheck

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

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

netty

CVSS base

7.5

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

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)

netty

Products (1)

netty

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
7.5	CVSS 3.1	HIGH	—	—	cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-297

References

2 on the record

github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-p85m-gvr3-788c
vendor-advisory
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/netty-through-tls-hostname-verification-bypass
third-party-advisory

Elsewhere on this site

nettyevery CVE for this vendor
CWE-297other 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.