CVE-2026-14457

Published Aug 25, 2026

Last updated a month ago

CVSS high 7.5

Overview

Description
Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally, a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and also sends the typically omitted "signature_algorithms_cert" TLS extension. Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible. CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference Description: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests that key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration is to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or signed by any convenient CA). When the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the "signature_algorithms_cert" extension is handled reliably even without the fix, and peer clients or servers that don't support raw public keys may be able to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding certificate or its public key. Deployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate need to upgrade to an updated release as noted below. FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
Source
openssl-security@openssl.org
NVD status
Analyzed
Products
openssl

Risk scores

CVSS 3.1

Type
Secondary
Base score
7.5
Impact score
3.6
Exploitability score
3.9
Vector string
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Severity
HIGH

Weaknesses

openssl-security@openssl.org
CWE-476

Social media

Hype score
Not currently trending

  1. OpenSSLの脆弱性(CVE-2026-14457, CVE-2026-18798, CVE-2026-54874, CVE-2026-63072, CVE-2026-63073, CVE-2026-63074, CVE-2026-63075, CVE-2026-63076, CVE-2026-75803)と4.0.2, 3.6.4, 3.5.8, 3.4.7, 3.0.22, 1.1.1zi,1.0.2zrリリース https://t.co/imehF2rIt4

    @Sh1n_K_NO_S01aR

    26 Aug 2026

    45 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

  2. OpenSSLの脆弱性(CVE-2026-14457, CVE-2026-18798, CVE-2026-54874, CVE-2026-63072, CVE-2026-63073, CVE-2026-63074, CVE-2026-63075, CVE-2026-63076, CVE-2026-75803) #sios_tech #security #vulnerability #セキュリティ #脆弱性 #ssh #openssl #ssl https://t.co/pcY0glAjsV

    @omokazuki

    26 Aug 2026

    204 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    2 Likes

    1 Bookmark

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

Configurations

Related CVEs

  1. Issue summary: A malicious remote peer may flood the local QUIC stack with NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames by avoiding a limit check on how many connection IDs the remote QUIC stack can use. Impact summary: The local QUIC stack sends a RETIRE_CONN_ID frame for every NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame it receives. The RETIRE_CONN_ID frame is dispatched via the Control Frame Queue (CFQ). If the remote peer also withholds ACKs, then it can force the local stack to allocate ~400MB (depending on ACK delay). CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling Description: RFC 9000 sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 [1] describe the mechanism by which a remote peer can notify the local QUIC stack to change the destination connection ID (a.k.a. CID) the local stack uses to identify the connection at the remote peer. Each CID is associated with a sequence number. The sequence number is transmitted in NEW_CONNECTION_ID and RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames to identify the CID which is being either associated with a connection or retired. The remote peer sends a NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame to let the local stack know a new CID is being associated with an existing connection. The NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame carries the new CID, its sequence number, and the retire-prior-to number. The retire-prior-to identifies existing CIDs that are to be retired. The local QUIC stack must send a RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID for every destination CID whose sequence number is less than retire-prior-to. The CID becomes retired after the local stack receives an ACK for its RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame. Although the OpenSSL QUIC stack supports at most one destination CID for every connection, it can be tricked into processing more than one RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame per connection. The OpenSSL QUIC stack currently retires the destination CID as soon as it receives the NEW_CONNECTION_ID, while in fact the destination CID must be retired after an ACK for the RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame is received. Correcting the flawed logic also fixes the backlog growth. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000#name-issuing-connection-ids FIPS impact: no The FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC implementation is outside of the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.•CVE-2026-84784
  2. Issue summary: The first concurrent use of the same X.509 certificate by several threads may cause its cached extension data to be freed while another thread is still using it. Impact summary: A remote, unauthenticated peer could crash a multi-threaded TLS client, or a multi-threaded TLS server that requests client certificates, if the first certificate chains built to the same trusted CA certificate are built by several connections at the same time. This is a use-after-free read, which is likely to crash the process, resulting in a Denial of Service. CWE: CWE-416: Use After Free Description: OpenSSL caches the decoded values of a certificate's X.509v3 extensions inside the X509 object the first time they are needed. In OpenSSL 4.0 this cache is built in two phases: the extension values are computed while holding a read lock on the certificate, and the results are then installed into the certificate under a write lock. Because a read lock does not exclude other readers, several threads can compute the cache for the same certificate at the same time. Each thread that subsequently acquires the write lock installs its own results and frees the values installed by the thread before it, even though that earlier thread has already marked the cache as complete and may have returned pointers into it to its caller. A caller still using those pointers then reads freed memory. Any certificate shared between threads is exposed the first time its extensions are decoded. In TLS the certificates at risk are the trusted CA certificates supplied for chain verification, by whatever means, since these are shared by every connection and their extensions are decoded and cached the first time a chain is built to them. Certificates sent by the peer are decoded separately for each connection and are not shared, so they are not affected. In a TLS client verifying server certificates, or a TLS server that requests and verifies client certificates, the use-after-free could only occur if the first chains built to the same trusted CA are built by several connections at the same time. FIPS impact: no The FIPS module is not affected as X.509 certificate handling is outside of the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. OpenSSL 4.0 is vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.0, 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are not affected by this issue. OpenSSL 4.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 4.0.3. This issue was reported on 27 August 2026 by Tim Becker (Xint.io) and independently in a public report on 31 August 2026 by aydinmercan. The fix has been developed by Bob Beck. -- cut (non-publishing metadata for internal use) -- Reported by: Tim Becker (Xint.io), aydinmercan Fixed by: Bob Beck•CVE-2026-84783
  3. Issue summary: The DTLS retransmission logic does not correctly handle a handshake message write that is suspended part-way through. The retransmitted message can be read past the message buffer and the retransmission overwrites the internal state the suspended write needs to resume correctly. Impact summary: The retransmitted message can disclose a heap memory to the peer as plaintext handshake data or cause a crash and a Denial of Service when the read reaches an unmapped memory region. CWE: CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read Description: DTLS handshake messages can be written out in multiple fragments, and a write can suspend mid-message (returning WANT_WRITE) if the underlying transport temporarily cannot accept more data. While such a write is suspended, the DTLS retransmission timer may independently fire and ask the retransmission logic to resend an earlier, already-acknowledged-as-sent message from its retransmit queue. The retransmission logic reused the same internal buffer and position tracking as the message that was still being written, without resetting the position back to the start of the message being retransmitted. As a result the retransmission was read starting from wherever the suspended write had left off, producing a mislabelled message whose body was leftover bytes from the other, larger message still in flight - content that was never meant to be sent at that point, and which could run past the end of the allocated buffer. Separately, even when the retransmission is positioned correctly, allowing it to run to completion while another write is suspended overwrites the same shared bookkeeping that the suspended write depends on to resume. When the application later resumes the suspended write (via a subsequent SSL_read(), SSL_write(), SSL_accept(), or SSL_connect() call), it finds that bookkeeping in a state inconsistent with the message and aborts the process in a debugging build. The fix resets the retransmission's read position to the start of the message before resending, and skips retransmission entirely whenever a handshake write is still suspended, deferring to the next call that resumes it instead. FIPS impact: no The affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.•CVE-2026-84782
  4. Issue summary: SM2 signature generation uses non-constant-time arithmetic on secret values, forming a timing side-channel. Impact summary: An attacker able to measure SM2 signing times may learn information about the per-signature secret nonce, which over many signatures can, via a lattice / Hidden Number Problem attack, lead to recovery of the private key. CWE: CWE-208: Observable Timing Discrepancy Description: SM2 signature generation computes the signature value using variable-time BIGNUM operations on the secret nonce and the private key, so the time taken to produce an SM2 signature depends on these secret values, forming a timing side-channel. Applications performing SM2 signature generation are affected on all platforms. FIPS Impact: no SM2 is not a FIPS algorithm.•CVE-2026-77696
  5. Issue summary: An established DTLS 1.2 association using an AEAD cipher suite can be terminated by a single unauthenticated datagram whose encrypted fragment is shorter than the mandatory explicit IV and authentication tag overhead. Impact summary: An attacker who can send a datagram that is routed to an existing DTLS 1.2 association can tear that association down without knowing any key material. This is a Denial of Service limited to the targeted association. There is no memory safety or confidentiality impact. CWE: CWE-1284: Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input Description: In TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 every record protected by an AEAD cipher suite carries an explicit IV followed by the ciphertext and an authentication tag. When decrypting such a record the record layer passed the record length to the cipher implementation before checking that the record was long enough to contain the explicit IV and the tag. For a record shorter than that overhead the cipher implementation rejected the impossible length, and the record layer treated this as an internal failure and raised a fatal internal_error alert instead of treating the record as one that failed authentication. In TLS 1.2 the same record causes a fatal internal_error alert instead of the expected bad_record_mac alert. Since any undecryptable record already terminates a TLS connection, this is a protocol conformance issue rather than a security issue in TLS. The fix validates the record length against the explicit IV and tag length before any AEAD processing, so that TLS reports bad_record_mac and DTLS silently discards the record. FIPS impact: no The affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.•CVE-2026-75806

References

Sources include official advisories and independent security research.