RUSTSEC-2026-0049: CRLs not considered authorative by Distribution Point due to faulty matching logic

> CRLs not considered authorative by Distribution Point due to faulty matching logic

| Details | |
| ------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
| Package | `rustls-webpki` |
| Version | `0.103.8` |
| Date | 2026-03-20 |
| Patched versions | `>=0.103.10` |

If a certificate had more than one `distributionPoint`, then only the first `distributionPoint` would be considered against each CRL's `IssuingDistributionPoint` `distributionPoint`, and then the certificate's subsequent `distributionPoint`s would be ignored.

The impact was that correct provided CRLs would not be consulted to check revocation. With `UnknownStatusPolicy::Deny` (the default) this would lead to incorrect but safe `Error::UnknownRevocationStatus`. With `UnknownStatusPolicy::Allow` this would lead to inappropriate acceptance of revoked certificates.

This vulnerability is thought to be of limited impact. This is because both the certificate and CRL are signed -- an attacker would need to compromise a trusted issuing authority to trigger this bug. An attacker with such capabilities could likely bypass revocation checking through other more impactful means (such as publishing a valid, empty CRL.)

More likely, this bug would be latent in normal use, and an attacker could leverage faulty revocation checking to continue using a revoked credential.

This vulnerability is identified by [GHSA-pwjx-qhcg-rvj4](https://github.com/rustls/webpki/security/advisories/GHSA-pwjx-qhcg-rvj4). Thank you to @1seal for the report.

See [advisory page](https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0049.html) for additional details.

The issue names rustls-webpki 0.103.8 and identifies patched versions at or above 0.103.10, but it does not mention repository files, tests, or a requested change. Start by checking how this repository declares and uses rustls-webpki, then confirm the dependency can be updated and that the affected revocation-checking behavior is covered. Done should include a verified dependency update or a documented reason it is not applicable.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.