
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: >= 4.0.0, < 6.29.1
Patched in 6.29.1
Vulnerable: >= 7.0.0, < 7.30.1
Patched in 7.30.1
Vulnerable: >= 8.0.0, < 8.12.2
Patched in 8.12.2
Details
undici's Agent passes its constructor options through a JSON-based deep clone (JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(...))) before forwarding them to each per-origin Pool. JSON cannot represent functions, so a caller-supplied tls option containing a checkServerIdentity callback is silently dropped before it reaches the TLS layer. As a result, a TLS peer whose certificate a custom checkServerIdentity was written to reject, but which passes Node's default hostname and chain checks, is silently accepted when the request is made through Agent. Because Agent is the default dispatcher behind request, fetch, and setGlobalDispatcher, this is the path most applications use. EnvHttpProxyAgent is also affected on its direct and NO_PROXY routes, which delegate to an internal Agent.
Only applications that pass a function-valued tls option (such as a custom checkServerIdentity for certificate or public-key pinning) are affected. Passing the same options through connect is not affected. This is the Agent counterpart of the BalancedPool certificate validation bypass fixed in CVE-2026-84961.
Upgrade to undici 6.29.1, 7.30.1, or 8.12.2. Agent now preserves the tls option outside the JSON clone, so custom TLS verification callbacks are forwarded to each origin unchanged.
Pass the TLS options through connect instead of tls. For proxied EnvHttpProxyAgent destinations, use requestTls / proxyTls.
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.18%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 7.9% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 10/27/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.