]> TU Dresden, Germany

muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de

SEAT AI agents Intra-handshake attestation CVE-2026-33697 The draft aims to provide technical details of CVE-2026-33697 and EUVD-2026-16488, which is substantial technical evidence of how intra-handshake attestation fails in practice, even without physical access. Moreover, since continuous attestation is generally required, intra-handshake attestation adds unnecessary complexity. The results are backed by the research and the artifacts in state-of-the-art tool, ProVerif, under Apache-2.0 license for reproducibility, and have been acknowledged by the relevant stakeholders. About This Document The latest revision of this draft can be found at . Status information for this document may be found at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction This draft presents the formal specification and analysis of the candidate binding mechanisms for binding in intra-handshake attestation for standardization for attested TLS protocols: Binding mechanisms, implementations and ProVerif artifacts

No.	Binding mechanism	Used in	Artifacts
1.	Client’s TLS nonce	Meta's AI	binder1
2.	Client’s attestation nonce	-	binder2
3.	Early exporter	-	binder3
4.	Server’s public key	-	binder4
5.	Combination of #2 and #3	-	binder5
6.	Combination of #2 and #4	Edgeless Systems Contrast; Cocos AI; CCC Attestation SIG's adopted project intra-handshake attestation	binder6
7.	Combination of #2, #3, and #4	draft-fossati-tls-attestation-06	binder7

We responsibly disclosed the vulnerability in intra-handshake attestation -- as noted in security advisory issued -- to the vendors, which resulted in of CVSS 7.5.

Credits While not the editors of this draft, we discovered CVE-2026-33697 jointly with Viacheslav Dubeyko and Jean-Marie Jacquet.

Detailed Vulnerability Disclosure Timeline and Public Acknowledgements by Affected Vendors Detailed vulnerability disclosure timeline and acknowledgements

Event	Date
Our initial responsible disclosure to vendor	07 Oct, 2025
Acknowledgement by vendor	14 Dec, 2025
Information to the IETF	11 Jan, 2026
Public announcement by vendor	27 Feb, 2026
Cocos AI published security advisory [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.8)]	23 March, 2026
CVE (CVE-2026-33697) published [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.5)]	26 March, 2026
ERISA published EUVD (EUVD-2026-16488) [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.5)]	26 March, 2026
Acknowledgment by Privasys for rustls CVE-2026-33697 [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.5)]	9 July, 2026
Acknowledgment by Privasys for go CVE-2026-33697 [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.5)]	10 July, 2026
CCC implementation declared vulnerable to relay attacks	17 July, 2026
Vulnerable CCC implementation repo archived	22 July, 2026
Vulnerable draft draft-fossati-tls-attestation withdrawn by authors	23 July, 2026
Edgeless Systems published security advisory [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.4)]	29 July, 2026

EU ERISA European Union's ERISA has independently published EUVD-2026-16488 with CVSS 7.5 to acknowledge this vulnerability.

Comparison with Other Vulnerabilities in Confidential Computing Literature Severity is based on NIST metrics. Comparison with other vulnerabilities in confidential computing literature

Vulnerability	CVE	CVSS	Severity
wiretap.fail	No CVE (Intel and AMD announcements)	-	None
TEE.fail	No CVE	-	None
TDXdown	Intel	2.5	Low
Staleus	CVE-2025-54509	4.0	Medium
BreakFAST	CVE-2025-61972	4.2	Medium
BadRAM	AMD	5.3	Medium
BreakFAST	CVE-2025-61971	5.9	Medium
Fabricked	CVE-2025-54510	5.9	Medium
Intra-handshake.fail	CVE-2026-33697	7.5	High

The comparison of the above with CVSS 7.5 for indicates that attested TLS is not mature yet compared to the rest of the confidential computing stack, and is currently one of the weakest links in the ecosystem.

More CVEs Further formal analysis has led to the following potential CVEs for intra-handshake attestation (currently under disclosure):

• 1 CVE of expected CVSS 7.4
• 2 CVEs of expected CVSS 7.5
• 1 CVE of expected CVSS 8.7
• 2 CVEs of expected CVSS 9.1
• 1 CVE of expected CVSS 9.8

These are preliminary estimates of scores, not final assigned score. They are still under review.

Vulnerable Implementations At least the following implementations are vulnerable:

• Meta's AI: CVE-2026-33697 and EUVD-2026-16488 [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.5)]
• Cocos AI: security advisory [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.8)], CVE-2026-33697 and EUVD-2026-16488 [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.5)]
• Edgeless Systems Contrast: security advisory [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.4)]
• CCC Attestation SIG's adopted project intra-handshake attestation: declared vulnerable to relay attacks and archived
• Privasys rustls: Acknowledgment of applicability of CVE-2026-33697 [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.5)]
• Pirvasys go: Acknowledgment of applicability of CVE-2026-33697 [Severity = HIGH (CVSS 7.5)]

If you are aware of any other intra-handshake attestation implementation, please let us know so that we can check and disclose the vulnerabilities to them.

Vulnerable Protocol Specifications At least the following protocol specifications with intra-handshake attestation path are vulnerable to CVE-2026-33697 and EUVD-2026-16488:

• draft-fossati-tls-attestation: symbolic proof of insecurity; draft withdrawn
• draft-fossati-seat-early-attestation: symbolic and computational proof of insecurity (orginially done for -04 and applies also to -06)
• draft-ritz-seat-facts: symbolic proof of insecurity

Binding Levels

1. DH shared secret (gxy) used as shared secret between client and server
2. Handshake traffic key (htsc) used for encryption of handshake messages
3. Application traffic key (astc) used for encryption of application data

Please see Sec. 6.2 of for details.

Correlation Goals We consider TLS Server as RATS Attester, which is typical in confidential computing.

1. Correlation of Evidence to a DH Shared Secret (G1)
2. Correlation of Evidence to Client’s Handshake Traffic Key (G2)
3. Correlation of Evidence to Client’s Application Traffic Key (G3)

Please see Sec. 6.3 of for details.

Main Results

• All analyzed binding mechanisms and the corresponding implementations of intra-handshake attestation are vulnerable to relay attacks.
• Early exporter helps achieve level 1 binding.
• Our proposed mechanism helps achieve level 2 binding.
• It may not be possible to achieve level 3 in intra-handshake attestation alone without additional assumptions.

Main results

Property	Mechanism #1,2,4,6	Mechanism #3,5,7	Proposed mechanism
G1 : Correlation of Evidence to gxy	❌	✅	✅
G2 : Correlation of Evidence to kch	❌	❌	✅
G3 : Correlation of Evidence to kc	❌	❌	❌

Please see Sec. 7.1 of for details.

Expected Results Expected results

No.	Binding mechanism	Artifacts	Expected results
1.	Client’s TLS nonce	binder1	binder1
2.	Client’s attestation nonce	binder2	binder2
3.	Early exporter	binder3	binder3
4.	Server’s public key	binder4	binder4
5.	Combination of #2 and #3	binder5	binder5
6.	Combination of #2 and #4	binder6	binder6
7.	Combination of #2, #3, and #4	binder7	binder7
8.	Proposed	proposal	proposal

Implications of Findings

Implications of Findings for IETF SEAT WG

• We believe post-handshake attestation alone, such as draft-fossati-seat-expat, can achieve level 3 binding.
• The research suggests that recent hybrid proposals (combination of intra-handshake attestation and post-handshake attestation) draft-fossati-seat-early-attestation and draft-ritz-seat-facts may add unnecessary complexity of intra-handshake attestation without adding any security benefit compared to post-handshake attestation alone, such as draft-fossati-seat-expat. We are not aware of any security property that hybrid proposals can achieve that post-handshake attestation alone cannot achieve.
• As demonstrated by our symbolic analysis using ProVerif, the protocol specifications draft-fossati-seat-early-attestation and draft-ritz-seat-facts remain vulnerable to CVE-2026-33697. We have also proved that draft-fossati-seat-early-attestation-04 and draft-fossati-seat-early-attestation-06 violate the security theorems in the computational model.

Implications of Findings for IETF LAKE WG

• Similar problems occur for protocol specification lake-ra.

Implications of Findings for IETF TLS WG

• draft-fossati-tls-attestation-09 is vulnerable to CVE-2026-33697. Thankfully, the authors have withdrawn draft-fossati-tls-attestation-10.
• Remote attestation within the handshake is very dangerous, since to our knowledge, it is one of the highest scored vulnerabilities in confidential computing literature (see ).

Implications of Findings for Agent2Agent From a security perspective, intra-handshake attestation does more damage than protection for AI agents.

Technical Details

Tool We use state-of-the-art symbolic security analysis tool ProVerif for the specification of the protocols.

Modeling The formal model uses the fixed version of diversion attacks in intra-handshake attestation from our previous work as the starting point to focus on relay attacks in intra-handshake attestation in this work. The rationale is that we consider it more useful to show the added value of this contribution to the community by using the fixed version of diversion attacks in intra-handshake attestation as the baseline, rather than showing the same diversion attacks from ID-Crisis paper, and the discovered CVE () -- which the previous analysis could not find -- practically demonstrates the added value. This modeling choice makes it clear that even with the diversion attacks fixed, high-severity relay attacks would still remain in intra-handshake attestation. Note: Similar to the fixed version of diversion attacks in intra-handshake attestation from our previous work, we model non-PSK-based handshake. From ID-Crisis paper:

• For modeling TLS 1.3, we consider handshakes based on Diffie-Hellman over either finite fields or elliptic curves, represented as (EC)DHE. This is because we are unaware of any publicly available specification or implementation of attested TLS with PSK-based handshakes.

While it would be nice to model PSK-based handshake, the rationale is that the correlation properties studied in this work do not necessarily require it.

Technical Report Technical report is available at . It is accepted for publication at ESORICS 2026.

Vulnerabilities Sec. 7.1 of presents the technical details with actual attack traces of the vulnerabilities.

Mitigation Sec. 7.2 of presents the technical details of the proposed mitigation.

Artifacts Artifacts are available at under Apache-2.0 License.

Media Coverage Several media enthusiasts have covered the vulnerabilities to protect the community from the harm of intra-handshake attestation.

• The Register
• (Japanese) BlackHatNewsTokyo
• (Several languages) Hackernoon
• Apple podcast
• Information Security News
• TheNextGenTechInsider
• DailySecurityReview
• SC World
• 01 Quantum
• (Russian) Security Lab
• (German) blogspan
• (Chinese) Sina
• data4biz
• (Russian) ITSec
• (Chinese) smzdm
• (Chinese) donews
• (Chinese) ifeng
• dugganusa
• dugganusa repo
• spoitus
• lavx news
• sohu
• (Persian) news.ditty
• (Russian) LiMP VPN
• daily.dev
• warden
• GCVE.eu
• coderlegion
• Anjuna Security
• freenode
• (Chinese) csdn
• osintsights
• (Turkish) hardwaremania
• akber
• ad-hoc news
• AIMultiple

If you have written an article on this and would like to be added here, please send us a PR or an email with the subject "media coverage of intra-handshake.fail"

Security Researchers Several credible security researchers, such as the following, have publicly attested to it.

• Michael Pak
• Rodrigo Branco
• Bart Preneel
• Thorsten Strufe

Germany's BSI Germany's Federal Office for Information Security (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik) has attested to it. Carina Hilt, deputy press spokesperson at BSI, told The Register:

Reviews

Conference Reviews has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication at ESORICS 2026.

IETF/IRTF Several participants of the IETF/IRTF have attested to the results by independently reproducing the results and reviewing the code. Some of the participants have independently reproduced the results by developing their own formal models and a proof-of-concept implementation of the vulnerabilities. Some of the messages are mentioned below:

• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/aEV9dUFotAQzHndk23qBcwBT3as/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/3Hv0E1sfXsvyBtl6AgY8j-SHHiw/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/5LJ6i9svomnhpyPHWPejM7fMmXQ/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/V_YqGUY3fEwaFwwyfA9DshpHet0/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/JF_cwmHHEbrJ_W5V6yEetWWnii4/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/P_CYTycg0KG7cbKauFA-kVgX2jo/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/ZJjJXpYwZ5nCVmz_W4FK6XiFEY4/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/4so3LxHOOXHS1wnvhuoeWWgeCHk/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/Q6Jmc58v0c1lDV3ujIY0AX_ofGA/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/n4Me5QPCvwhxcEJndWePyishcoo/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/beRzNNvwMifkRfJPfxecGoHpTDs/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/U5YHd91lYjiqCTt9BZyVDNFeUpM/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/aFCo4BMRDSUynvN9AQJatPjnXag/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/wb_Ys9MZd9u9oM2Bk-8tv7fvXGg/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/ov8f-7cZKK5RZ-Mmjc6IhVSB-Fk/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/2uUuaD1DygjNDM4GT_-rYbwTiJk/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/2_aGylmFHoLmqN7BBcYVoH-rNJk/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/VyifG8zP5aworb_S1NR9FEUEXW0/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/CYwvM75z6rTId2A3ZZvZJmHxOig/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ufmrg/29xFZX5C4oSGkpZAvXT_7YLW2Vc/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/u1HxYW9cJfVpi3Cf9q06ehwpYGE/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/SG_A0016a-KMnXAkGtMUxokZmjc/
• https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/3w7-OW2CAVr0-QBz97eAMxB_nMI/

Main Questions In short, three main questions have been raised by WG participants in support of our work:

• What security property hybrid (intra- + post-handshake attestation) provides that post-handshake attestation alone cannot provide?
• Since continuous attestation is required in most use cases, how is additional complexity of intra-handshake attestation justified? Use cases with one-time attestation can be covered by doing attestation round immediately after Connection Establishment Time: see reference.
• What is the benefit of doing signatures of remote attestation within the handshake (as this latency can be exploited)? See reference.

Researchers outside of IETF/IRTF Some researchers have approached us confirming the proof-of-concept of the vulnerabilities in intra-handshake attestation. More information will be added once their pre-prints/papers are public.

Security Considerations All of this document is about the insecurity of intra-handshake attestation. By no means should the vendors mentioned in this draft be considered less secure than any other vendors implementing intra-handshake attestation solutions. In particular, those who have closed-source implementations are likely more vulnerable than the open-source ones, since they cannot easily be reviewed. Even extensive security reviews by cybersecurity firms often do not perform formal analysis, and thus remain prone to the corner cases.

Ethical Considerations We (i.e., the super set of all authors involved in this research) are ethical researchers aiming to protect the community before the attackers can exploit the vulnerabilities. We have responsibly disclosed the vulnerabilities to the developers and maintainers and provided them our proposed mitigations to take rapid action. We have released only the formal analysis for published CVE. To avoid exploit in the wild, we have not publicly released the proof-of-concept exploit code. We have not retrieved any real data from any real system. We have not released any key to any public forum or to any person. To the best of our abilities, knowledge, and understanding, we have tried to explain the vulnerabilities to the authors of vulnerable drafts draft-fossati-tls-attestation, draft-fossati-seat-early-attestation, and draft-ritz-seat-facts for at least half a year at several forums, including CCC Attestation SIG and IETF/IRTF. Please see the (non-exhaustive) recordings and the archives. Thankfully, the first one has been withdrawn.

IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions.

Normative References CVE

Acknowledgments We would like to thank our co-authors of paper for their valuable contributions:

• Viacheslav Dubeyko
• Jean-Marie Jacquet

We gratefully acknowledge the following for insightful discussions and reviews on this work:

• Eric Rescorla
• Juho Forsén
• Markus Rudy
• Mariam Moustafa
• Bruno Blanchet
• Steve Kremer
• Tjaden Hess
• Martin Thomson
• Yuning Jiang
• Pavel Nikonorov
• Casey Wilson
• Danko Miladinovic
• Songbo Bu
• John Preuß Mattsson
• Britta Hale
• Werner Staub
• Haowen Song
• Chengxin Huang
• Steve Luo
• Kubilay Ahmet Küçük
• Iman Schrock
• Patrick Duggan
• Nathanael Ritz
• Deb Cooley

We also gratefully acknowledge the following who gave feedback on previous state-of-the-art that we utilize as the basis:

• Tuomas Aura
• Ionut Mihalcea
• Thomas Fossati
• Hannes Tschofenig
• Yaron Sheffer
• Laurence Lundblade
• Giridhar Mandyam
• Christopher Patton
• Jonathan Hoyland
• Richard Barnes

Several others at the IETF, IRTF, CCC, and GA4GH have contributed by providing feedback. We sincerely thank Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Bruno Blanchet, and Nadim Kobeissi for the foundational formal model of draft 20 of TLS 1.3 in their work. The research work is funded by German Research Foundation ("Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.")