Answer in brief
CVE-2026-34073 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.3) vulnerability in cryptography has incomplete DNS name constraint enforcement on peer names. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps cryptography (pip), cryptography (pypi). 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 5.3. 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 cryptography (pip), cryptography (pypi). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| cryptographypip | <46.0.6 | 46.0.6 |
| cryptographypypi | >=0 <46.0.6 | 46.0.6 |
Published upstream
Mar 27, 2026
Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Sep 10, 2026
Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Jun 11, 2026
## Summary In versions of cryptography prior to 46.0.5, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the "peer name" presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named `bar.example.com` to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for `*.example.com`, even if the leaf's parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for `bar.example.com`. This behavior resulted from a gap between RFC 5280 (which defines Name Constraint semantics) and RFC 9525 (which defines service identity semantics): put together, neither states definitively whether Name Constraints should be applied to peer names. To close this gap, cryptography now conservatively rejects any validation where the peer name would be rejected by a name constraint if it were a SAN instead. In practice, exploitation of this bypass requires an uncommon X.509 topology, one that the Web PKI avoids because it exhibits these kinds of problems. Consequently, we consider this a medium-to-low impact severity. See CVE-2025-61727 for a similar bypass in Go's `crypto/x509`. ## Remediation Users should upgrade to 46.0.6 or newer. ## Attribution Reporter: @1seal
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.