<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<cvrfdoc xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:cpe="http://cpe.mitre.org/language/2.0" xmlns:cvrf="http://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/ns/csaf-cvrf/v1.2/cvrf" xmlns:cvrf-common="http://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/ns/csaf-cvrf/v1.2/common" xmlns:cvssv2="http://scap.nist.gov/schema/cvss-v2/1.0" xmlns:cvssv3="https://www.first.org/cvss/cvss-v3.0.xsd" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:ns0="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:prod="http://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/ns/csaf-cvrf/v1.2/prod" xmlns:scap-core="http://scap.nist.gov/schema/scap-core/1.0" xmlns:sch="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron" xmlns:vuln="http://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/ns/csaf-cvrf/v1.2/vuln" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/ns/csaf-cvrf/v1.2/cvrf">
  <DocumentTitle xml:lang="en">CVE-2026-26994</DocumentTitle>
  <DocumentType>SUSE CVE</DocumentType>
  <DocumentPublisher Type="Vendor">
    <ContactDetails>security@suse.de</ContactDetails>
    <IssuingAuthority>SUSE Security Team</IssuingAuthority>
  </DocumentPublisher>
  <DocumentTracking>
    <Identification>
      <ID>SUSE CVE-2026-26994</ID>
    </Identification>
    <Status>Interim</Status>
    <Version>1</Version>
    <RevisionHistory>
      <Revision>
        <Number>1</Number>
        <Date>2026-03-05T00:15:20Z</Date>
        <Description>current</Description>
      </Revision>
    </RevisionHistory>
    <InitialReleaseDate>2026-03-05T00:15:20Z</InitialReleaseDate>
    <CurrentReleaseDate>2026-03-05T00:15:20Z</CurrentReleaseDate>
    <Generator>
      <Engine>cve-database/bin/generate-cvrf-cve.pl</Engine>
      <Date>2020-12-27T01:00:00Z</Date>
    </Generator>
  </DocumentTracking>
  <DocumentNotes>
    <Note Title="CVE" Type="Summary" Ordinal="1" xml:lang="en">CVE-2026-26994</Note>
    <Note Title="Mitre CVE Description" Type="Description" Ordinal="2" xml:lang="en">uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. In versions 1.6.7 and below, uTLS did not implement the TLS 1.3 downgrade protection mechanism specified in RFC 8446 Section 4.1.3 when using a uTLS ClientHello spec. This allowed an active network adversary to downgrade TLS 1.3 connections initiated by a uTLS client to a lower TLS version (e.g., TLS 1.2) by modifying the ClientHello message to exclude the SupportedVersions extension, causing the server to respond with a TLS 1.2 ServerHello (along with a downgrade canary in the ServerHello random field). Because uTLS did not check the downgrade canary in the ServerHello random field, clients would accept the downgraded connection without detecting the attack. This attack could also be used by an active network attacker to fingerprint uTLS connections. This issue has been fixed in version 1.7.0.</Note>
    <Note Title="Terms of Use" Type="Legal Disclaimer" Ordinal="4" xml:lang="en">The CVRF data is provided by SUSE under the Creative Commons License 4.0 with Attribution (CC-BY-4.0).</Note>
  </DocumentNotes>
  <DocumentReferences>
    <Reference Type="Self">
      <URL>https://www.suse.com/support/security/rating/</URL>
      <Description>SUSE Security Ratings</Description>
    </Reference>
  </DocumentReferences>
  <ProductTree xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/ns/csaf-cvrf/v1.2/prod"/>
  <Vulnerability xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/ns/csaf-cvrf/v1.2/vuln" Ordinal="1">
    <Notes>
      <Note Title="Vulnerability Description" Type="General" Ordinal="1" xml:lang="en">uTLS is a fork of crypto/tls, created to customize ClientHello for fingerprinting resistance while still using it for the handshake. In versions 1.6.7 and below, uTLS did not implement the TLS 1.3 downgrade protection mechanism specified in RFC 8446 Section 4.1.3 when using a uTLS ClientHello spec. This allowed an active network adversary to downgrade TLS 1.3 connections initiated by a uTLS client to a lower TLS version (e.g., TLS 1.2) by modifying the ClientHello message to exclude the SupportedVersions extension, causing the server to respond with a TLS 1.2 ServerHello (along with a downgrade canary in the ServerHello random field). Because uTLS did not check the downgrade canary in the ServerHello random field, clients would accept the downgraded connection without detecting the attack. This attack could also be used by an active network attacker to fingerprint uTLS connections. This issue has been fixed in version 1.7.0.</Note>
    </Notes>
    <CVE>CVE-2026-26994</CVE>
    <ProductStatuses/>
    <Threats>
      <Threat Type="Impact">
        <Description>moderate</Description>
      </Threat>
    </Threats>
  </Vulnerability>
</cvrfdoc>
