CVE-2026-8881
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 · uneditedVersion 3.0.7 of the Securly Chrome Extension uses EVP_BytesToKey key derivation with MD5 and a single iteration for AES encryption. MD5 has been broken since 2004 and a single iteration provides no key stretching.
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 Securly Chrome Extension version 3.0.7 implements AES encryption using EVP_BytesToKey with MD5 as the hash function and only a single iteration. This is critically weak because MD5 has been broken since 2004 (collision attacks) and a single iteration provides no computational cost to attackers attempting to brute-force the key.
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= 3.0.7CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 installed Securly extension versionOpen Chrome browser, navigate to chrome://extensions, enable Developer Mode (toggle in top-right), locate Securly extension, note the version number displayed under the extension nameAffected if Version shown is exactly 3.0.7
-
Confirm extension is enabled and loadedOn chrome://extensions page, verify the Securly extension toggle is ON and there are no error icons indicating the extension failed to loadAffected if Extension is enabled and loaded with version 3.0.7 present
-
Verify extension is actively protecting the browserVisit any website and confirm the Securly extension icon appears in the Chrome toolbar with active status indicatorAffected if Extension is active and operational with version 3.0.7
If the Securly Chrome Extension version 3.0.7 is installed and enabled in Chrome, the environment is affected by the weak key derivation vulnerability.
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 dataReplace EVP_BytesToKey with a modern key derivation function (PBKDF2, scrypt, or Argon2) using a minimum of 100,000 iterations and a cryptographically secure hash (SHA-256 or stronger). Plan for data migration if encrypted data exists.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-8881 — 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-2026-8881 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