This project contains known security vulnerabilities. Find detailed information at the bottom.

Crate rustls-rustcrypto

Dependencies

(22 total, 15 outdated, 1 insecure, 2 possibly insecure)

CrateRequiredLatestStatus
 aead^0.5.20.6.1out of date
 aes-gcm^0.10.30.11.0out of date
 chacha20poly1305^0.10.10.11.0out of date
 crypto-common^0.1.60.2.2out of date
 der^0.7.90.8.0out of date
 digest^0.10.70.11.3out of date
 ecdsa^0.16.80.17.0out of date
 ed25519-dalek^22.2.0up to date
 hmac^0.12.10.13.0out of date
 p256^0.13.20.14.0out of date
 p384^0.13.00.13.1up to date
 paste^1.0.141.0.15up to date
 pkcs8^0.10.20.11.0out of date
 rustls-pki-types^1.0.11.15.0up to date
 rand_core^0.6.40.10.1out of date
 rsa ⚠️^0.9.20.9.10insecure
 rustls ⚠️^0.23.00.23.41maybe insecure
 sec1^0.7.30.8.1out of date
 sha2^0.10.70.11.0out of date
 signature^2.1.03.0.0out of date
 rustls-webpki ⚠️^0.102.00.103.13out of date
 x25519-dalek^22.0.1up to date

Dev dependencies

(1 total, 1 outdated)

CrateRequiredLatestStatus
 getrandom^0.20.4.3out of date

Security Vulnerabilities

rsa: Marvin Attack: potential key recovery through timing sidechannels

RUSTSEC-2023-0071

Impact

Due to a non-constant-time implementation, information about the private key is leaked through timing information which is observable over the network. An attacker may be able to use that information to recover the key.

Patches

No patch is yet available, however work is underway to migrate to a fully constant-time implementation.

Workarounds

The only currently available workaround is to avoid using the rsa crate in settings where attackers are able to observe timing information, e.g. local use on a non-compromised computer is fine.

References

This vulnerability was discovered as part of the "Marvin Attack", which revealed several implementations of RSA including OpenSSL had not properly mitigated timing sidechannel attacks.

rustls: rustls network-reachable panic in `Acceptor::accept`

RUSTSEC-2024-0399

A bug introduced in rustls 0.23.13 leads to a panic if the received TLS ClientHello is fragmented. Only servers that use rustls::server::Acceptor::accept() are affected.

Servers that use tokio-rustls's LazyConfigAcceptor API are affected.

Servers that use tokio-rustls's TlsAcceptor API are not affected.

Servers that use rustls-ffi's rustls_acceptor_accept API are affected.

rustls-webpki: CRLs not considered authoritative by Distribution Point due to faulty matching logic

RUSTSEC-2026-0049

If a certificate had more than one distributionPoint, then only the first distributionPoint would be considered against each CRL's IssuingDistributionPoint distributionPoint, and then the certificate's subsequent distributionPoints would be ignored.

The impact was that correctly provided CRLs would not be consulted to check revocation. With UnknownStatusPolicy::Deny (the default) this would lead to incorrect but safe Error::UnknownRevocationStatus. With UnknownStatusPolicy::Allow this would lead to inappropriate acceptance of revoked certificates.

This vulnerability is thought to be of limited impact. This is because both the certificate and CRL are signed -- an attacker would need to compromise a trusted issuing authority to trigger this bug. An attacker with such capabilities could likely bypass revocation checking through other more impactful means (such as publishing a valid, empty CRL.)

More likely, this bug would be latent in normal use, and an attacker could leverage faulty revocation checking to continue using a revoked credential.

This vulnerability is identified as GHSA-pwjx-qhcg-rvj4. Thank you to @1seal for the report.

rustls-webpki: Name constraints for URI names were incorrectly accepted

RUSTSEC-2026-0098

Name constraints for URI names were ignored and therefore accepted.

Note this library does not provide an API for asserting URI names, and URI name constraints are otherwise not implemented. URI name constraints are now rejected unconditionally.

Since name constraints are restrictions on otherwise properly-issued certificates, this bug is reachable only after signature verification and requires misissuance to exploit.

This vulnerability is identified as GHSA-965h-392x-2mh5. Thank you to @1seal for the report.

rustls-webpki: Name constraints were accepted for certificates asserting a wildcard name

RUSTSEC-2026-0099

Permitted subtree name constraints for DNS names were accepted for certificates asserting a wildcard name.

This was incorrect because, given a name constraint of accept.example.com, *.example.com could feasibly allow a name of reject.example.com which is outside the constraint. This is very similar to CVE-2025-61727.

Since name constraints are restrictions on otherwise properly-issued certificates, this bug is reachable only after signature verification and requires misissuance to exploit.

This vulnerability is identified as GHSA-xgp8-3hg3-c2mh. Thank you to @1seal for the report.

rustls-webpki: Reachable panic in certificate revocation list parsing

RUSTSEC-2026-0104

A panic was reachable when parsing certificate revocation lists via [BorrowedCertRevocationList::from_der] or [OwnedCertRevocationList::from_der]. This was the result of mishandling a syntactically valid empty BIT STRING appearing in the onlySomeReasons element of a IssuingDistributionPoint CRL extension.

This panic is reachable prior to a CRL's signature being verified.

Applications that do not use CRLs are not affected.

Thank you to @tynus3 for the report.