CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2026-82209

CVE-2026-82209 — domain-scoped PSL domain cookie

When libpsl support is enabled, libcurl fails to enforce the Public Suffix List boundary check when processing a `Set-Cookie` header where the `Domain` attribute explicitly matches an origin host that is itself a public suffix (e.g., `Domain=co.uk` set by `co.uk`). Instead of coercing it into a strict host-only cookie, libcurl saves the cookie with wildcard domain scope (`.co.uk`). Consequently, the cookie is inappropriately included in subsequent outbound requests or HTTP redirects to arbitrary sibling subdomains under the same public suffix (e.g., `attacker.co.uk`).

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, curl

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

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

curl

curl

CVSS base

8.2

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

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)

curl

Products (1)

curl

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.2CVSS 3.1HIGH——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-201

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • curlevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-201other 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.