Hi,
I encountered a crash while using RealiTLScanner v0.2.2.
The scanner successfully connects to the target and prints TLS information, but then crashes with a nil pointer dereference inside ScanTLS.
Output:
time=2026-05-26T14:33:09.505Z level=INFO msg="Connected to target" feasible=true ip=79.137.196.197 origin=79.137.196.197 tls="TLS 1.3" alpn=h2 curve=X25519 cert-length="2719(certs count: 3)" cert-signature=ECDSA-SHA256 cert-publickey=ECDSA cert-domain=github.com cert-issuer="Sectigo Limited" geo=N/A
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x90 pc=0x67f844]
goroutine 10 [running]:
main.ScanTLS(...)
/home/yu/go/src/github.com/xtls/RealiTLScanner/scanner.go:89
Environment:
OS: Linux
RealiTLScanner: v0.2.2
It looks like leaf may become nil before accessing fields like:
leaf.SignatureAlgorithm.String()
leaf.PublicKeyAlgorithm.String()
Maybe a nil check is needed before using leaf.
The issue seems reproducible on some TLS targets with specific certificate chains.
Thanks.
Hi,
I encountered a crash while using RealiTLScanner v0.2.2.
The scanner successfully connects to the target and prints TLS information, but then crashes with a nil pointer dereference inside ScanTLS.
Output:
time=2026-05-26T14:33:09.505Z level=INFO msg="Connected to target" feasible=true ip=79.137.196.197 origin=79.137.196.197 tls="TLS 1.3" alpn=h2 curve=X25519 cert-length="2719(certs count: 3)" cert-signature=ECDSA-SHA256 cert-publickey=ECDSA cert-domain=github.com cert-issuer="Sectigo Limited" geo=N/A
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x90 pc=0x67f844]
goroutine 10 [running]:
main.ScanTLS(...)
/home/yu/go/src/github.com/xtls/RealiTLScanner/scanner.go:89
Environment:
OS: Linux
RealiTLScanner: v0.2.2
It looks like leaf may become nil before accessing fields like:
leaf.SignatureAlgorithm.String()
leaf.PublicKeyAlgorithm.String()
Maybe a nil check is needed before using leaf.
The issue seems reproducible on some TLS targets with specific certificate chains.
Thanks.