CVE-2026-40944
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 · uneditedOxia is a metadata store and coordination system. Prior to 0.16.2, the trustedCertPool() function in the TLS configuration only parses the first PEM block from CA certificate files. When a CA bundle contains multiple certificates (e.g., intermediate + root CA), only the first certificate is loaded. This silently breaks certificate chain validation for mTLS. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.16.2.
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 confidenceThe trustedCertPool() function in Oxia versions prior to 0.16.2 only parses the first PEM block from CA certificate files, ignoring any additional certificates in CA bundles. This causes mTLS certificate chain validation to fail silently when intermediate or root CAs are present alongside the leaf certificate.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 Oxia installationLocate the Oxia binary or library in your environment - search for the 'axia' binary or check your Go module dependencies for 'github.com/axia-tech/axia'Affected if Oxia is present in your environment
-
Determine Oxia versionRun 'axia version' if the binary is available, or check your Go module version file (go.mod, go.sum) for the axia package versionAffected if The installed version is prior to 0.16.2
-
Verify mTLS configuration existsExamine your Oxia configuration files or code for mTLS setup - look for clientCertFile, clientKeyFile, or trustedCertPool configuration options that reference CA certificate filesAffected if mTLS is configured with CA certificate files in use
-
Inspect CA certificate file structureOpen your CA certificate file in a text editor and count the PEM block occurrences - each block starts with '-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----' and ends with '-----END CERTIFICATE-----'Affected if The CA file contains more than one certificate block (a bundle), and the Oxia version is below 0.16.2
You are affected if Oxia version is below 0.16.2 AND you use mTLS with CA bundle files containing multiple certificates, because only the first certificate will be parsed and chain validation will fail for certificates signed by intermediate or root CAs beyond the first block.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade Oxia to version 0.16.2 or later to fix the PEM parsing logic. Alternatively, use single-certificate CA files (not recommended for production mTLS).
0.16.2
- Upgrade Oxia to version 0.16.2 or later to resolve the trustedCertPool() PEM parsing vulnerability
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-40944 — 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-2026-40944 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