Vulnerability from bitnami_vulndb
Published
2026-02-21 08:36
Modified
2026-02-21 09:08
Summary
Cosign Certificate Chain Expiry Validation Issue Allows Issuing Certificate Expiry to Be Overlooked
Details

Cosign provides code signing and transparency for containers and binaries. In versions 3.0.4 and below, an issuing certificate with a validity that expires before the leaf certificate will be considered valid during verification even if the provided timestamp would mean the issuing certificate should be considered expired. When verifying artifact signatures using a certificate, Cosign first verifies the certificate chain using the leaf certificate's "not before" timestamp and later checks expiry of the leaf certificate using either a signed timestamp provided by the Rekor transparency log or from a timestamp authority, or using the current time. The root and all issuing certificates are assumed to be valid during the leaf certificate's validity. There is no impact to users of the public Sigstore infrastructure. This may affect private deployments with customized PKIs. This issue has been fixed in version 3.0.5.


{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Bitnami",
        "name": "cosign",
        "purl": "pkg:bitnami/cosign"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.0.5"
            }
          ],
          "type": "SEMVER"
        }
      ],
      "severity": [
        {
          "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
          "type": "CVSS_V3"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-24122"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cpes": [
      "cpe:2.3:a:sigstore:cosign:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
    ],
    "severity": "Low"
  },
  "details": "Cosign provides code signing and transparency for containers and binaries. In versions 3.0.4 and below, an issuing certificate with a validity that expires before the leaf certificate will be considered valid during verification even if the provided timestamp would mean the issuing certificate should be considered expired. When verifying artifact signatures using a certificate, Cosign first verifies the certificate chain using the leaf certificate\u0027s \"not before\" timestamp and later checks expiry of the leaf certificate using either a signed timestamp provided by the Rekor transparency log or from a timestamp authority, or using the current time. The root and all issuing certificates are assumed to be valid during the leaf certificate\u0027s validity. There is no impact to users of the public Sigstore infrastructure. This may affect private deployments with customized PKIs. This issue has been fixed in version 3.0.5.",
  "id": "BIT-cosign-2026-24122",
  "modified": "2026-02-21T09:08:21.332Z",
  "published": "2026-02-21T08:36:39.661Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/commit/3c9a7363f563db76d78e2de2cabd945450f3781e"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/releases/tag/v3.0.5"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/security/advisories/GHSA-wfqv-66vq-46rm"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24122"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.6.2",
  "summary": "Cosign Certificate Chain Expiry Validation Issue Allows Issuing Certificate Expiry to Be Overlooked"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…