Skip to content

Caddy: mTLS client authentication silently fails open when CA certificate file is missing or malformed

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 23, 2026 in caddyserver/caddy • Updated Feb 27, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 (Go)

Affected versions

< 2.11.1

Patched versions

2.11.1

Description

Summary

Two swallowed errors in ClientAuthentication.provision() cause mTLS client certificate authentication to silently fail open when a CA certificate file is missing, unreadable, or malformed. The server starts without error but accepts any client certificate signed by any system-trusted CA, completely bypassing the intended private CA trust boundary.

Details

In modules/caddytls/connpolicy.go, the provision() method has two return nil statements that should be return err:

Bug #1 — line 787:

ders, err := convertPEMFilesToDER(fpath)
if err != nil {
    return nil  // BUG: should be "return err"
}

Bug #2 — line 800:

err := caPool.Provision(ctx)
if err != nil {
    return nil  // BUG: should be "return err"
}

Compare with line 811 which correctly returns the error:

caRaw, err := ctx.LoadModule(clientauth, "CARaw")
if err != nil {
    return err  // CORRECT
}

When the error is swallowed on line 787, the chain is:

  1. TrustedCACerts remains empty (no DER data appended from the file)
  2. The len(clientauth.TrustedCACerts) > 0 guard on line 794 is false — skipped
  3. clientauth.CARaw is nil — line 806 returns nil
  4. clientauth.ca remains nil — no CA pool was created
  5. provision() returns nil — caller thinks provisioning succeeded

Then in ConfigureTLSConfig():

  1. Active() returns true because TrustedCACertPEMFiles is non-empty
  2. Default mode is set to RequireAndVerifyClientCert (line 860)
  3. But clientauth.ca is nil, so cfg.ClientCAs is never set (line 867 skipped)
  4. Go's crypto/tls with RequireAndVerifyClientCert + nil ClientCAs verifies client certs against the system root pool instead of the intended CA

The fix is changing return nil to return err on lines 787 and 800.

PoC

  1. Configure Caddy with mTLS pointing to a nonexistent CA file:
{
    "apps": {
        "http": {
            "servers": {
                "srv0": {
                    "listen": [":443"],
                    "tls_connection_policies": [{
                        "client_authentication": {
                            "trusted_ca_certs_pem_files": ["/nonexistent/ca.pem"]
                        }
                    }]
                }
            }
        }
    }
}
  1. Start Caddy — it starts without any error or warning.

  2. Connect with any client certificate (even self-signed):

openssl s_client -connect localhost:443 -cert client.pem -key client-key.pem
  1. The TLS handshake succeeds despite the certificate not being signed by the intended CA.

A full Go test that proves the bug end-to-end (including a successful TLS handshake with a random self-signed client cert) is here: https://gist.github.com/moscowchill/9566c79c76c0b64c57f8bd0716f97c48

Test output:

=== RUN   TestSwallowedErrorMTLSFailOpen
    BUG CONFIRMED: provision() swallowed the error from a nonexistent CA file.
    tls.Config has RequireAndVerifyClientCert but ClientCAs is nil.
    CRITICAL: TLS handshake succeeded with a self-signed client cert!
    The server accepted a client certificate NOT signed by the intended CA.
--- PASS: TestSwallowedErrorMTLSFailOpen (0.03s)

Impact

Any deployment using trusted_ca_cert_file or trusted_ca_certs_pem_files for mTLS will silently degrade to accepting any system-trusted client certificate if the CA file becomes unavailable. This can happen due to a typo in the path, file rotation, corruption, or permission changes. The server gives no indication that mTLS is misconfigured.

References

@mholt mholt published to caddyserver/caddy Feb 23, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 24, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 24, 2026
Reviewed Feb 24, 2026
Last updated Feb 27, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(32nd percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles an exceptional condition. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-27586

GHSA ID

GHSA-hffm-g8v7-wrv7

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.