CVE-2021-22926
Public exploit available. Not confirmed exploited in the wild yet. Fixed versions are out.
What to do
Find your product and version, then upgrade to the build on the right.
- N/a Https://github.com/curl/curlAffected: curll 7.33.0 to and include 7.77.0Upgrade to: not statedStated by: CVE record
- Haxx CurlAffected: ≥ 7.33.0, < 7.78.0Upgrade to: 7.78.0Stated by: NVD
- Oracle Mysql ServerAffected: ≥ 5.7.0, ≤ 5.7.35Upgrade to: after 5.7.35Stated by: NVD
- Siemens Sinec Infrastructure Network ServicesAffected: < 1.0.1.1Upgrade to: 1.0.1.1Stated by: NVD
- Splunk Universal ForwarderAffected: ≥ 8.2.0, < 8.2.12Upgrade to: 8.2.12Stated by: NVD
Versions as the sources state them. Full version matrix after sign-in
Steps
Written by AI from the record- Check whether your software uses curl/libcurl and runs on macOS with the Secure Transport TLS backend — most Linux/Windows servers are unaffected.
- Ask your vendor or IT admin if the affected app loads a client certificate 'by name' rather than by exact file path, and whether it runs from a shared writable folder like /tmp.
- If you run curl directly or bundle it, upgrade to curl 7.78.0 or later.
- For NetApp, Oracle, Siemens, or SolarWinds-related products listed as affected, apply the vendor's specific patch (e.g. update Siemens SINEC to V3.1.5+).
- If you can't patch immediately, avoid running affected apps from shared writable directories and restrict local user access on the host.
What it is
From the CVE record
libcurl-using applications can ask for a specific client certificate to be used in a transfer. This is done with the `CURLOPT_SSLCERT` option (`--cert` with the command line tool).When libcurl is built to use the macOS native TLS library Secure Transport, an application can ask for the client certificate by name or with a file name - using the same option. If the name exists as a file, it will be used instead of by name.If the appliction runs with a current working directory that is writable by other users (like `/tmp`), a malicious user can create a file name with the same name as the app wants to use by name, and thereby trick the application to use the file based cert instead of the one referred to by name making libcurl send the wrong client certificate in the TLS connection handshake.
In plain language
Written by AI from the recordA narrow curl bug on Mac-based systems could let a sneaky local user trick an app into sending the wrong security certificate, but it only matters in specific setups — most small businesses using standard software are not at risk.
CWE-295/840 identity-verification flaw: libcurl built against macOS Secure Transport resolves a by-name client certificate request to a same-named file in the current working directory, letting a local attacker with write access to a shared directory (e.g. /tmp) substitute their own certificate during the TLS handshake.
If you're affected
- Wrong identity presented in TLS handshake
- Possible impersonation of trusted client
- Limited to specific macOS setups
- Risk only from local attackers
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
1 source with a proof of concept or module.
Exploit links, PoCs and Metasploit modules after sign-in- EPSS
15% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 97th percentile of scored CVEs.
Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.
Lifecycle
A public exploit existed 83 days before the patch.
- EPSS band changelow → moderateepss band change
- Patch availablerecord updated
- OpenVAS check added
- Patch availablerecord updated
- Public exploit / PoCsource: other
- Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped
Affected products
And 7 more affected products. See all after sign-in
Technical detail
CVSS 3.1 vector
Open in the CVSS calculatorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Scored 7.5 by NVD.
How it is reached
- Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
- Attack Complexity LowNo special conditions — the attack can be reliably reproduced
- 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 NoneNo integrity impact
- Availability HighTotal denial of service — the component is completely unavailable
Weaknesses
ATT&CK techniques
Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.
Sources
References in the record
- hackerone.com/reports/1234760
- lists.apache.org/thread.html/r61db8e7dcb56dc000a5387a88f7a473bacec5ee01b9ff3f55308aacc%40%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E
- lists.apache.org/thread.html/r61db8e7dcb56dc000a5387a88f7a473bacec5ee01b9ff3f55308aacc%40%3Cusers.kafka.apache.org%3E
And 19 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 Netapp, not every advisory. This one: public exploit.
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