CVE 6.3 MEDIUM

Apache Log4j Core: verifyHostName attribute silently ignored in TLS configuration, allowing hostname verification bypass_CVE-2026-34477

6.3 / 10
MEDIUM
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N

Description

The fix for CVE-2025-68161 https://logging.apache.org/security.html#CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the log4j2.sslVerifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/systemproperties.html#log4j2.sslVerifyHostName system property, but not when configured through the verifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#SslConfiguration-attr-verifyHostName attribute of the <Ssl> element.

Although the verifyHostName configuration attribute was introduced in Log4j Core 2.12.0, it was silently ignored in all versions through 2.25.3, leaving TLS connections vulnerable to interception regardless of the configured value.

A network-based attacker may be able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack when all of the following conditions are met:

* An SMTP, Socket, or Syslog appender is in use.
* TLS is configured via a nested <Ssl> element.
* The attacker can present a certificate issued by a CA trusted by the appender's configured trust store, or by the default Java trust store if none is configured.
This issue does not affect users of the HTTP appender, which uses a separate verifyHostname https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#HttpAppender-attr-verifyHostName attribute that was not subject to this bug and verifies host names by default.

Users are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j Core 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-34477
Source apache
Published Apr 10, 2026 at 15:36
Modified Apr 10, 2026 at 17:38

Affected Product

Vendor Apache Software Foundation
Product Apache Log4j Core
Version 2.12.0
Affected Versions Apache Software Foundation Apache Log4j Core 2.12.0
Apache Software Foundation Apache Log4j Core 3.0.0-alpha1

CWE Classification

References

💭 Join the Security Discussion

🔒 Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

⚠️ Please be respectful and constructive in your comments. Security discussions should remain professional.