CVE-2025-61727 | Improper application of excluded DNS name constraints when verifying wildcard names in crypto/x509

An excluded subdomain constraint in a certificate chain does not restrict the usage of wildcard SANs in the leaf certificate. For example a constraint that excludes the subdomain test.example.com does not prevent a leaf certificate from claiming the SAN *.example.com.

Published: 2025-12-03 Last update: 2025-12-18 Assigner: [email protected] Source: [email protected]
NVD Status：Analyzed，CVE State: published
View at NVD, CVE.org, EUVD

CVE-2025-61727 is rated Low Risk (27/100): CVSS Medium severity, with low exploitation likelihood (EPSS 0.02%). Monitor for updates and reassess as exploit intelligence or EPSS changes.

Risk is dynamic; we continuously reassess and refresh what is shown on this page as upstream context changes.

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2025-61727

EPSS lead: Daily EPSS estimates relative likelihood of exploitation; percentile ranks this CVE among scored vulnerabilities (higher = more severe relative rank).

# Date Old EPSS score New EPSS score Delta (New - Old)
1 2025-12-04 — 0.02% —

Full EPSS history (1 record total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2025-61727

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
6.5 3.1 MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:L)
Some sensitive info could get out, but not a total data dump.
Integrity (I:L)
Attackers could change some data, but it’s limited—not everything goes.
Availability (A:N)
Service keeps running; no real outage angle.
 3.9 2.5 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2025-61727

OS Trackers for CVE-2025-61727

vendor priority summary link
alpine — CVE-2025-61727: 2 source package rows (docker, go); 148 state rows across 3 repos (3.22-community, 3.23-community, edge-community); fixed 4, open 144. https://security.alpinelinux.org/vuln/CVE-2025-61727
debian not yet assigned CVE-2025-61727 not yet assigned priority: Debian including 4 source packages (golang-1.15, golang-1.19, golang-1.24, golang-1.25), 5 status rows across 5 suites (bookworm, bullseye, forky, sid, trixie): open 3, resolved 2. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2025-61727
redhat medium — https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-61727
suse high CVE-2025-61727 severity important: SUSE including 91 source package names (13.2-9.2:curl-8.14.1-slfo.1.1_3.1, 13.2-9.2:iputils-20221126-6.1, …), 527 product×package rows across 69 product lines (Container suse/sl-micro/6.0/baremetal-os-container, Container suse/sl-micro/6.0/base-os-container, … (69 product lines)): Fixed 366, Known Not Affected 147, First Fixed 14. https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-61727/
ubuntu medium CVE-2025-61727 medium priority: Ubuntu including 2 source packages (golang-1.24, golang-1.25), 10 status rows across 5 suites (jammy, noble, plucky, questing, upstream): needs-triage 6, DNE 3, ignored 1. https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2025-61727

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2025-61727

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
golang go < 1.24.11 cpe:2.3:a:golang:go:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
golang go >= 1.25, < 1.25.5 cpe:2.3:a:golang:go:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

References for CVE-2025-61727

cvelogic Threat Intelligence