CVE-2026-23992
Theupdateframework Go-Tuf 2.0.0 – 2.3.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-23992 is a medium-severity Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (CWE-347) vulnerability in Theupdateframework Go-Tuf. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Supply Chain Compromise (T1195); ranked at the 10th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-13 (Cryptographic Protection) and SI-7 (Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-23992 affects go-tuf, a Go implementation of The Update Framework (TUF), specifically versions starting from 2.0.0 up to but not including 2.3.1. The vulnerability arises when a compromised or misconfigured TUF repository sets signature thresholds to 0, effectively disabling signature verification. This flaw, classified under CWE-347 (Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature), allows unauthorized modifications to TUF metadata files either at rest or during transit, as no integrity checks are performed. The issue carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.9 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N), indicating medium severity with high integrity impact.
Attackers can exploit this vulnerability if they gain the ability to compromise or misconfigure a TUF repository, enabling them to set thresholds to 0 without requiring privileges, user interaction, or scope changes. Exploitation is network-accessible but requires high attack complexity. Successful attacks allow adversaries to arbitrarily modify TUF metadata, undermining the integrity of the update framework and potentially enabling further supply chain compromises through tampered metadata.
The go-tuf security advisory (GHSA-fphv-w9fq-2525) and fixing commit (b38d91fdbc69dfe31fe9230d97dafe527ea854a0) confirm that version 2.3.1 resolves the issue. As a workaround, administrators should ensure all TUF metadata roles are configured with a signature threshold of at least 1 to prevent disabling verification.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-3672
Vulnerability Data
go-tuf is a Go implementation of The Update Framework (TUF). Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.3.1, a compromised or misconfigured TUF repository can have the configured value of signature thresholds set to 0, which effectively disables signature…
more
verification. This can lead to unauthorized modification to TUF metadata files is possible at rest, or during transit as no integrity checks are made. Version 2.3.1 fixes the issue. As a workaround, always make sure that the TUF metadata roles are configured with a threshold of at least 1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 14 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requiring cryptographic protection mechanisms forces correct signature verification to be implemented for data protection.
Mandating integrity verification tools directly requires proper cryptographic signature checking to detect unauthorized changes.
Protecting session authenticity requires correct verification of cryptographic signatures or equivalent mechanisms.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-at-rest, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.
Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-in-transit, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.
Requires assessing authenticity and integrity of acquired assets, which commonly relies on signature verification but is limited to pre-acquisition.
Secure SDLC practices include code signing and signature verification requirements, addressing the weakness during development.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Establishing approved cryptographic solutions and usage practices lowers the probability that signature-verification steps will be omitted or incorrectly implemented.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248574 YUM must be configured to prevent the installation of patches, service packs, device drivers, or OL 8 system components that have not been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
- V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
- V-271525 OL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-347
- V-271523 OL 9 must check the GPG signature of locally installed software packages before installation. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-204447 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
- V-204448 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230264 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257822 RHEL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-347