Answer in brief
CVE-2026-12490 records a High severity (CVSS 8.2) vulnerability in Bypass of client certificate verification with transfer over TLS. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps NLnet Labs/NSD (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
CVSS is 8.2. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps NLnet Labs/NSD (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| NLnet Labs/NSDgeneric | >=4.10.1 <4.14.3 | 4.14.3 |
Published upstream
Jun 25, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Jun 26, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Jun 25, 2026
When a provide-xfr is given with a tls-auth-name, a secondary requesting a transfer should provide a client certificate with that name. However, no client certificate is needed when the request comes in over TLS over the regular tls-port (and not the tls-auth-port) or over over TCP over the regular port, when the other conditions of the provide-xfr rule match.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.
Answer in brief
CVE-2026-12490 records a High severity (CVSS 8.2) vulnerability in Bypass of client certificate verification with transfer over TLS. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps NLnet Labs/NSD (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
CVSS is 8.2. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps NLnet Labs/NSD (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| NLnet Labs/NSDgeneric | >=4.10.1 <4.14.3 | 4.14.3 |
Published upstream
Jun 25, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Jun 26, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Jun 25, 2026
When a provide-xfr is given with a tls-auth-name, a secondary requesting a transfer should provide a client certificate with that name. However, no client certificate is needed when the request comes in over TLS over the regular tls-port (and not the tls-auth-port) or over over TCP over the regular port, when the other conditions of the provide-xfr rule match.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.