Skip to main content

Zoom Clients CVE-2026-108184

| EUVDEUVD-2026-98765 HIGH
Improper Certificate Validation (CWE-295)
2026-10-13 Zoom GHSA-hqpx-mx62-25m9
7.4
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: Zoom
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Gain man-in-the-middle network position
  2. Exploit
    Present fraudulent TLS certificate
  3. Execution
    Client fails certificate validation
  4. Impact
    Intercept and disclose sensitive session data

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
ASVS 5.0
V12 - Secure Communication Certificate validation
Exploitation Conditions

Exploitation requires the attacker to hold a man-in-the-middle position on the network path between the Windows Zoom client and its server so that a forged/invalid TLS certificate can be injected; the improper certificate validation (CWE-295) then causes the client to accept that certificate and expose data in transit. This MITM prerequisite is exactly why the vector is rated AC:H - it is not achievable by a remote attacker with no network control. Limiting factors: attacker must be able to intercept TLS traffic (e.g., hostile Wi-Fi, ARP/DNS spoofing, or a compromised network device), and the issue is specific to affected versions of Zoom Clients for Windows. No authentication is required (PR:N) and no user interaction is needed (UI:N) once the interception position is held.

Impact

The CVSS base score of 7.4 (High) is driven by network attack vector (AV:N), no privileges (PR:N), no user interaction (PR:N/UI:N) and high confidentiality and integrity impact (C:H/I:H), but it is materially tempered by high attack complexity (AC:H). For a CWE-295 improper-certificate-validation flaw, AC:H almost always reflects the need for a privileged man-in-the-middle position on the network path, which is a meaningful real-world barrier. No EPSS probability was supplied in the input, so exploitation likelihood cannot be quantified; this absence should not be read as 'low,' only as unmeasured. The CVE is not listed in CISA KEV and no proof-of-concept is referenced, so this is 'no public exploit identified at time of analysis.' Net assessment: this is a genuine but conditional confidentiality risk rather than a drop-everything emergency - the high CVSS reflects impact and network reachability, while the practical bar (TLS interception / MITM) keeps real-world risk moderate and opportunistic rather than mass-exploitable. One conflict to verify with the vendor: the prose description states only 'information disclosure,' yet the CVSS vector asserts I:H (high integrity impact); the integrity claim is not substantiated by the description text and should be confirmed against Zoom bulletin ZSB-26021.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker positioned on the network path between a Windows Zoom client and Zoom's servers (e.g., on a shared/public Wi-Fi network or a compromised router) presents a fraudulent TLS certificate that the client fails to properly validate. Because the client accepts the invalid certificate, the attacker can intercept and read sensitive data in transit. No proof-of-concept is referenced in the available intelligence, and the AC:H rating reflects the need to first achieve this interception position.

This Week Schedule remediation this week. Why: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9).
No patch listed yet 0.2% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Oct 13, 2026

Improper TLS certificate validation in Zoom Clients for Windows allows an attacker who already holds a man-in-the-middle position on the network path to have a forged or invalid certificate accepted by the client, exposing data in transit (CWE-295). Affected are Zoom Clients for Windows builds tracked by the vendor CPE cpe:2.3:a:zoom_communications:zoom_clients (wildcard versioning indicates the bulletin applies across the client line, with specifics in Zoom security bulletin ZSB-26021). No authentication (PR:N) or user interaction (UI:N) is required once the interception position is held, but high attack complexity (AC:H) reflects that the attacker must first compromise the network path - e.g., hostile Wi-Fi, ARP/DNS spoofing, or a compromised network device - so this is not exploitable by an arbitrary remote attacker; there is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and no confirmed active exploitation (CISA KEV not applicable). The reported CVSS base score of 7.4 (High) is driven by AV:N/PR:N/UI:N, and the assessed impact is high confidentiality loss with integrity impact not confirmed by our independent assessment.

RemediationAI

Apply the fixed Zoom Clients for Windows build identified in Zoom security bulletin ZSB-26021 (https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/security-bulletin/zsb-26021); this is a vendor-published patch path, and the exact fixed version should be taken from that bulletin since the provided CPE uses a wildcard version and no version number can be independently confirmed here. Because the exploitable precondition is a man-in-the-middle position, mitigating controls that remove that precondition are the most effective compensating measures until clients are updated: require the client to run only over trusted networks or an always-on corporate VPN, which sharply reduces exposure to hostile Wi-Fi and public hotspots but adds latency and bandwidth overhead and requires capacity planning; on managed LANs and wireless, enable Dynamic ARP Inspection, DHCP snooping, and WPA2/WPA3-Enterprise to block the ARP/DNS spoofing and rogue-AP techniques the attacker needs, at the cost of managed-switch support and 802.1X rollout effort; and monitor endpoints and network egress for unexpected certificate issues or anomalous TLS interception tooling, which is detective rather than preventive. Note that TLS-inspecting middleboxes are not a fix for this issue - they exercise the same validation path the client handles incorrectly. There is no confirmed public exploit code and no confirmed active exploitation, so prioritization should follow normal risk-based patching against the 7.4 reported score while accounting for the AC:H network-position prerequisite.

Affected VersionsENISA

Zoom Clients see references

Affects your stack

Find out whether the stacks and servers you run are on an affected version.

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

The root cause is CWE-295 (Improper Certificate Validation): the Windows Zoom client does not correctly verify the certificate presented by the server during the TLS handshake, so a certificate that should fail validation - wrong chain, untrusted issuer, or otherwise invalid - can be accepted. Correct TLS handling requires chain-of-trust validation to a trusted root, hostname/CN-SAN matching, validity-period checks, and appropriate revocation handling; a failure in this logic lets a network-positioned adversary terminate or relay the client's TLS session and read the traffic that the client believes is protected. Affected platforms are the Windows Zoom Clients, identified by the vendor CPE cpe:2.3:a:zoom_communications:zoom_clients with a wildcard version, meaning the vendor's bulletin - Zoom security bulletin ZSB-26021 (https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/security-bulletin/zsb-26021) - is the authoritative source for which client builds are fixed. The CWE-295 class maps directly to the assessed impact, which is high confidentiality exposure (C:H) via information disclosure rather than remote code execution; the assessed vector AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N is consistent with a TLS-interception scenario, where the network reachability gives AV:N but the requirement to occupy the network path is what forces AC:H.

Know when Zoom Clients gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (Zoom) PRIMARY 7.4 HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
vuln.today AI 5.9 MEDIUM

Network-reachable MITM gives AV:N/PR:N but requires an interception position (AC:H); the description states information disclosure only, so C:H with I:N and A:N.

3.1 AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
4.0 AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Primary rating from Vendor (Zoom).

CVSS VectorVendor: Zoom

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
High
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

DescriptionCVE.org

Improper certificate validation in certain Zoom Clients for Windows may allow an unauthenticated user to conduct an information disclosure via network access.

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

Zoom Clients for Windows contain a high-severity TLS certificate validation flaw (CVE-2026-108184) that could allow an attacker with a man-in-the-middle network position to intercept and expose data in transit. Because Zoom is widely used for business communications, successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive meeting content or credentials. Leadership should prioritize network security controls and monitor for a vendor patch, as no public exploit or active exploitation has been identified at this time.

Business Impact: High
Compensating Controls

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis. Interim mitigations include: enforce use of corporate VPN for all Zoom traffic, prohibit Zoom on public or untrusted networks, implement network monitoring for ARP/DNS spoofing, and consider using the Zoom web client if validated as unaffected. Additionally, deploy TLS inspection with certificate pinning where feasible.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.2%
Top 95% exploitable
Prevalence
High
widely deployed enterprise and consumer conferencing client on Windows
Data Quality
4 sources
Confidence: Medium

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity HIGH
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.2%
Patch available No
Active threat No
Deciding rule
HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Scheduled
Exploitation· derived
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable· derived
No
Human Impact
High

Priority Score

37
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +37
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Information disclosure occurs when an application unintentionally exposes sensitive data that aids attackers in reconnaissance or directly compromises security.

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy