Improper Certificate ValidationWeakness · CWE-295

CVE-2026-1778

MEDIUM · 5.9 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-02-02
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
68/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Amazon SageMaker Python SDK before v3.1.1 or v2.256.0 disables TLS certificate verification for HTTPS connections made by the service when a Triton Python model is imported, incorrectly allowing for requests with invalid and self-signed certificates to succeed.

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 confidence

The Amazon SageMaker Python SDK before versions v3.1.1 or v2.256.0 contains a vulnerability where TLS certificate verification is incorrectly disabled for HTTPS connections when a Triton Python model is imported. This allows connections using invalid or self-signed certificates to succeed, enabling potential man-in-the-middle attacks and compromising the confidentiality and integrity of data in transit.

MitigationUpgrade Amazon SageMaker Python SDK to version v3.1.1 or v2.256.0 or later to restore proper TLS certificate verification. Verify that HTTPS connections correctly validate certificates after the upgrade.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify SageMaker SDK version
    Run `pip show sagemaker` or `python -c "import sagemaker; print(sagemaker.__version__)"` to retrieve the installed Amazon SageMaker Python SDK version
    Affected if The version is below v2.256.0 (for 2.x releases) or below v3.1.1 (for 3.x releases)
  2. Confirm Triton Python model import usage
    Search your codebase and running processes for imports of Triton models in SageMaker, such as `from sagemaker.triton import TritonModel` or usage of Triton model deployment features
    Affected if Code or runtime environment imports or utilizes Triton Python model functionality in SageMaker
  3. Verify TLS certificate validation behavior
    Test HTTPS connections from the SageMaker environment to an endpoint with an invalid or self-signed certificate. Use a test script like: `import urllib3; urllib3.disable_warnings(); requests.get('https://invalid-cert.example.com', verify=False)` and observe if the connection succeeds when it should fail
    Affected if HTTPS connections succeed using invalid, expired, or self-signed certificates, indicating certificate verification is disabled

You are affected if your SageMaker SDK version is below v2.256.0 (2.x line) or below v3.1.1 (3.x line) AND your environment imports or uses Triton Python model functionality, causing TLS certificate verification to be improperly disabled for HTTPS connections

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade Amazon SageMaker Python SDK to version v3.1.1 or v2.256.0 or later to restore proper TLS certificate verification. Verify that HTTPS connections correctly validate certificates after the upgrade.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

v2.256.0 or v3.1.1

  1. Check your current Amazon SageMaker Python SDK version using: pip show sagemaker
  2. Upgrade to v2.256.0 (for v2.x users) using: pip install sagemaker==2.256.0
  3. OR upgrade to v3.1.1 (for v3.x users) using: pip install sagemaker==3.1.1
  4. Verify the upgrade was successful: pip show sagemaker

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation1.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
5.0 hours of engineering $860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-1778 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-1778 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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