Quick answer
Direct answer
Risk scores
| CVSS metric | What it means |
|---|---|
| Attack vector (AV:N) | Network: reachable remotely |
| Attack complexity (AC:H) | High complexity |
| Privileges required (PR:N) | No privileges required |
| User interaction (UI:N) | No user interaction |
| Scope (S:U) | Scope unchanged |
| Confidentiality (C:H) | High confidentiality impact |
| Integrity (I:H) | High integrity impact |
| Availability (A:H) | High availability impact |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
About Devolutions Hub Reporting Service
CVE-2026-4396 affects Devolutions Hub Reporting Service, a product from Devolutions. Before acting, confirm where Devolutions Hub Reporting Service runs in your estate, who owns it and whether it is reachable from the internet, because exposure decides real risk more than the score alone.
What the flaw is
In plain terms: Improper certificate validation in Devolutions Hub Reporting Service 2025.3.1.1 and earlier allows a network attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack via disabled TLS certificate verification.
Based on its CVSS vector, the flaw can be reached over the network, needs no login, and needs no user interaction. Apply the vendor fix and confirm exposure on internet facing and business critical assets first.
Affected versions and timeline
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Product | Devolutions Hub Reporting Service |
| Affected versions | Hub Reporting Service before 2026.1.1.0 |
| Published | Mar 18, 2026 |
| Last modified | Jun 17, 2026 |
| Added to CISA KEV | Not listed |
| Assigning CNA | security@devolutions.net |
How to detect it
- Inventory every instance of Devolutions Hub Reporting Service and record the running version against the affected range above.
- Check external attack surface scans for internet facing instances of the component.
- Review logs on affected systems for unusual requests, errors or new processes around the vulnerable function.
- Confirm with an authenticated vulnerability scan once your scanner has a check for this CVE.
How to fix it
- Apply the fixed version of Devolutions Hub Reporting Service named in the vendor advisory.
- If patching must wait, restrict network access to the affected service and put it behind authentication or a web application firewall rule.
- Rescan after the change to prove the exposure is gone, then close the ticket.
CTEM action plan
| CTEM stage | What to do for this CVE |
|---|---|
| Scope | Add every business service that depends on Devolutions Hub Reporting Service to the current CTEM cycle. |
| Discover | Find all instances, including shadow and cloud deployments, and record versions and exposure. |
| Prioritize | Rank using EPSS and CVSS together with asset exposure and business impact. |
| Validate | Confirm the flaw is reachable and exploitable in your environment and that compensating controls work. |
| Mobilize | Assign the fix to the asset owner with a due date matched to the priority, then verify closure. |
CWE References
Technical References
Frequently asked questions
Related CVEs
Improper enforcement of a mandatory multi-factor authentication policy in Devolutions Server 2026.2.9.0 allows an attacker with valid user credentials to bypass the MFA Required policy and authenticate without completing multi-factor authentication. The problem occurs when DVLS encounters an invalid default MFA value.
During session resumption in crypto/tls, if the underlying Config has its ClientCAs or RootCAs fields mutated between the initial handshake and the resumed handshake, the resumed handshake may succeed when it should have failed. This may happen when a user calls Config.Clone and mutates the returned Config, or uses Config.GetConfigForClient. This can cause a client to resume a session with a server that it would not have resumed with during the initial handshake, or cause a server to resume a session with a client that it would not have resumed with during the initial handshake.
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, Name Constraints bypass via trailing dot in rfc822Name and URI. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 1.0.2.7 (1.0.X series), 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series).
A flaw was found in assisted-migration-agent. The application hardcodes insecure Transport Layer Security (TLS) connections when communicating with vCenter. This vulnerability allows a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacker to intercept and harvest vCenter administrator credentials. This can lead to unauthorized access to vCenter.
Missing hash/digest size and OID checks allow digests smaller than allowed when verifying ECDSA certificates, or smaller than is appropriate for the relevant key type, to be accepted by signature verification functions. This could lead to reduced security of ECDSA certificate-based authentication if the public CA key used is also known. This affects ECDSA/ECC verification when EdDSA or ML-DSA is also enabled.
Botan is a C++ cryptography library. In 3.11.0, the function Certificate_Store::certificate_known had a misleading name; it would return true if any certificate in the store had a DN (and subject key identifier, if set) matching that of the argument. It did not check that the cert it found and the cert it was passed were actually the same certificate. In 3.11.0 an extension of path validation logic was made which assumed that certificate_known only returned true if the certificates were in fact identical. The impact is that if an end entity certificate is presented, and its DN (and subject key identifier, if set) match that of any trusted root, the end entity certificate is accepted immediately as if it itself were a trusted root. , This vulnerability is fixed in 3.11.1.
Earn your free CTEM certification.
Learn to scope, prioritize, validate and mobilize fixes for CVEs like CVE-2026-4396 with a free CTEM certification.
Beginner / Practitioner / Program Leader
Explore certifications