dbcve.org
Improper Certificate ValidationWeakness · CWE-295

CVE-2026-44700

HIGH · 8.7 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-05-14
Patch available
A vendor patch is available. No clean upgrade release — apply the published patch.
See remediation →
96/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click Patch available

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
Elixir WebRTC is an Elixir implementation of the W3C WebRTC API. Prior to 0.15.1 and 0.16.1, missing DTLS peer certificate fingerprint validation in the DTLS client (active) role removes one side of WebRTC's mutual authentication. The bug is not independently exploitable for media interception in standard deployments, but enables a full man-in-the-middle attack when chained with insecure signalling or a peer with similar validation gaps. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.15.1 and 0.16.1.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-295

The application does not properly validate the TLS certificate presented by the other side — skipping the chain, the hostname, or expiry — so an attacker with a forged or mismatched certificate can sit in the middle of a supposedly secure connection. It is a common trap in custom clients and misconfigured libraries. The fix is full certificate validation, and never disabling verification to make errors go away.

General guidance for the improper certificate validation class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

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:H/VA:N/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

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
Patch available Apply the vendor patch
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

ex_webrtc version 0.16.1 (or 0.15.1 for the 0.15.x branch)

  1. Update the ex_webrtc dependency version in your mix.exs file to 0.16.1 (or 0.15.1 for the 0.15.x branch)
  2. Run `mix deps.get` to fetch the updated dependency
  3. Run `mix deps.compile ex_webrtc` to recompile the library with the fix
  4. Restart your application to ensure the new version is loaded
  5. Verify that DTLS peer certificate fingerprint validation is now properly enforced in WebRTC connections
Caveat Review the ex_webrtc changelog between your current version and 0.16.1 for any potential breaking changes in WebRTC connection handling

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

We can apply and verify the patch for your build — typical engagement from $1,950. Get the patch applied

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44700 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2026-44700 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