CVE-2021-32574
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedHashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise 1.3.0 through 1.10.0 Envoy proxy TLS configuration does not validate destination service identity in the encoded subject alternative name. Fixed in 1.8.14, 1.9.8, and 1.10.1.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceIn HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise versions 1.3.0 through 1.10.0, the Envoy proxy TLS configuration fails to properly validate the destination service identity encoded in the Subject Alternative Name (SAN) field of certificates. This allows a potential attacker to impersonate services by presenting a certificate with a forged or mismatched service identity in the SAN.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 1.3.0, < 1.8.14>= 1.9.0, < 1.9.8>= 1.10.0, < 1.10.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Consul versionRun 'consul --version' to determine the installed Consul version. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: >= 1.3.0, < 1.8.14; >= 1.9.0, < 1.9.8; >= 1.10.0, < 1.10.1Affected if The installed version falls within any of the listed vulnerable version ranges
-
Confirm Envoy proxy is in useCheck if Consul is configured to use Envoy as the proxy. Run 'consul connect envoy -version' or inspect the Consul configuration for 'connect' settings with 'envoy' as the proxy typeAffected if Envoy is configured as the proxy for Consul service mesh (Connect)
-
Verify Consul Connect service mesh is enabledCheck for the presence of service mesh configuration. Look for registered services with 'Kind' set to 'connect-proxy' using 'consul catalog services' or inspect agent configuration for 'connect' enabledAffected if Consul Connect service mesh is enabled and services are using mesh proxy configuration
-
Inspect TLS configuration for service meshExamine the Consul agent configuration and TLS settings for the Connect service mesh. Check if 'tls' configuration blocks exist for 'internal' or 'https' ports, and verify how SAN validation is handled for mesh certificatesAffected if TLS is configured for service mesh and the Envoy proxy is handling mTLS connections to upstream services
You are affected if your Consul version is within the vulnerable ranges AND you are using Envoy proxy with Consul Connect service mesh for mTLS communication between services.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor data1.8.141.9.81.10.1
Upgrade Consul to version 1.8.14, 1.9.8, or 1.10.1 (or later) to patch the TLS validation vulnerability in the Envoy proxy integration.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-32574 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-32574 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data