CVE-2026-34477
Apache Log4j Core: verifyHostName attribute silently ignored in TLS configuration, allowing hostname verification bypass
No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 40th percentile. A vendor fix is available.
What to do
The vendor has published a fix. Version details are below where the sources state them.
What it is
From the CVE record
The fix for CVE-2025-68161 https://logging.apache.org/security.html#CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the log4j2.sslVerifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/systemproperties.html#log4j2.sslVerifyHostName system property, but not when configured through the verifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#SslConfiguration-attr-verifyHostName attribute of the <Ssl> element. Although the verifyHostName configuration attribute was introduced in Log4j Core 2.12.0, it was silently ignored in all versions through 2.25.3, leaving TLS connections vulnerable to interception regardless of the configured value. A network-based attacker may be able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack when all of the following conditions are met: * An SMTP, Socket, or Syslog appender is in use. * TLS is configured via a nested <Ssl> element. * The attacker can present a certificate issued by a CA trusted by the appender's configured trust store, or by the default Java trust store if none is configured. This issue does not affect users of the HTTP appender, which uses a separate verifyHostname https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#HttpAppender-attr-verifyHostName attribute that was not subject to this bug and verifies host names by default. Users are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j Core 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.
In plain language
No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.
Exploitation
Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.
- CISA KEV
Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.
- Public exploits
No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.
- EPSS
0.5% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 40th percentile of scored CVEs.
Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.
Lifecycle
6 events over 76 days, from the signal feeds we watch.
- OpenVAS check added
- Patch availablerecord updated
- Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped
Affected products
Technical detail
CVSS 3.1 vector
Open in the CVSS calculatorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Scored 5.9 by NVD.
How it is reached
- Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
- Attack Complexity HighRequires specific conditions like a race condition or non-default configuration
- Privileges Required NoneNo authentication required — anyone can exploit this
- User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation
Scope
- Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself
Impact if exploited
- Confidentiality NoneNo confidentiality impact
- Integrity HighTotal loss of integrity — attacker can modify any data in the component
- Availability NoneNo availability impact
Weaknesses
ATT&CK techniques
Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.
Sources
References in the record
- github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/4075
- lists.apache.org/thread/lkx8cl46t2bvkcwfcb2pd43ygc097lq4
- logging.apache.org/cyclonedx/vdr.xml
And 2 more references. See all after sign-in
Watch the software you run.
My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.
We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Log4j, not every advisory.
A free account adds
- The full version matrix and every affected product
- Exploit links, proofs of concept and Metasploit modules
- Email alerts for the products you watch
- The same data over REST API, MCP and CLI