CVE-2026-63076

Published Aug 25, 2026

Last updated 6 days ago

CVSS high 7.5

Overview

Description
Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only checks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its ASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter. A crafted message can contain a parameter of a different type, which is then dereferenced as an invalid pointer. Impact summary: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can crash an application acting as a CMP server that accepts PBM-protected messages, or a CMP client talking to a malicious or intercepted CMP server, resulting in a Denial of Service. CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference Description: When verifying the password-based MAC protection of a CMP message, OpenSSL library reads the protectionAlg algorithm parameter with X509_ALGOR_get0(), which returns both the parameter type and its value pointer. The value is then cast to an ASN1_STRING and treated as the expected PBMParameter after only checking that pointer is not NULL. The parameter type returned by X509_ALGOR_get0() was never consulted. This happens during protection verification, before any MAC is computed, so no knowledge of the PBM shared secret is required; the only precondition is that PBM verification is reachable. On the server side this is reached from OSSL_CMP_SRV_process_request() for any application that stands up a CMP server accepting PBM-protected messages, and on the client side from CMP response validation against a malicious or on-path (MITM) server. The reliable consequence is a denial of service; there is no memory disclosure, no controlled memory write, and no path to code execution. CMP is a specialized feature that an application must explicitly enable. FIPS impact: no As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.
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: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty ciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication tag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function. Impact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and expecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages. CWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value) Description: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a one shot encryption and decryption call. It also verifies the AEAD tag after the decryption operation. However for AES-OCB and ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers it skipped the AEAD tag verification when an empty ciphertext was passed to the function. The callers of this function might believe that a successful return indicates a valid AEAD tag for these ciphers, even when that has not truly been validated in this case. FIPS impact: no The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this CVE as the affected algorithms are not FIPS approved and thus not implemented in the FIPS module.•CVE-2026-75803
  2. Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly sends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the QUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the connection. Impact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can cause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service through memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent QUIC connections. CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling Description: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet, there is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge that ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL implementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless. In and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and then drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the OpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames), and then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like legitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth on the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service. The fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only packet in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing the ACK-only packet metadata itself. FIPS impact: no The OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is outside the FIPS module boundary.•CVE-2026-63075
  3. Issue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches additional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges them (for instance if they are invalid). If a server reuses an OSSL_CMP_CTX frequently, this cache of extraCerts may grow unboundedly, and a malicious client may flood a CMP server with requests driving this growth. Impact summary: Users utilizing a CMP server that reuses a single OSSL_CMP_CTX for the lifetime of a server process may observe unbounded memory growth in the event a malicious client repeatedly sends requests containing unique extra certificates, which may lead to OOM conditions. CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling Description: If a remote user sends CMP messages to a server with a list of extraCerts and the message is rejected, the extraCerts from the message remains in the server contexts untrusted certificate stack. This exposes servers with long lived ctx objects to Denial of Service attacks in which an attacker sends messages intending to be rejected with a large list of additional certificates repeatedly, forcing the server to store them indefinitely. The issue was fixed by removing the added extra certs if the message is rejected, using the same method as when the context is configured to not do caching at all. FIPS impact: no As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.•CVE-2026-63074
  4. Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP response validation passed an unexpected response sender distinguished name directly as the format string to `ERR_raise_data()`. Impact summary: A malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint can crash a CMP client that enforces an expected sender or uses a pinned server certificate whose subject becomes the default expected sender. CWE: CWE-134 (Use of Externally-Controlled Format String) Description: When validating a received CMP message, ossl_cmp_msg_check_update() converts the peer-supplied sender distinguished name with X509_NAME_oneline() and passes it directly as the format argument to ERR_raise_data(). Percent characters survive the conversion, so a sender DN such as "CN=%s%n" reaches BIO_vsnprintf() as an attacker-controlled format string with no matching variadic arguments. This path is only reached when the caller configures an expected sender or pins a server certificate, which is the normal configuration for a CMP client validating server responses. Since the attacker controls the format string but none of the variadic arguments, such specifiers as %s and %n dereference or write through unrelated stack contents and crash the client. The reliable consequence is a denial of service, when the response comes from a malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint. There is no controlled memory write, arbitrary-address read, or reliable path to remote code execution. FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.•CVE-2026-63073
  5. Issue summary: OpenSSL CMS decryption sizes the key-unwrap output buffer based on querying the unwrapped key size, but the AES-WRAP-PAD unwrap primitive can write and cleanse more bytes than that query reports, causing an 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write. Impact summary: An attacker who supplies a crafted CMS message can trigger a deterministic 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write when the victim decrypts it with CMS_decrypt(), corrupting the heap and typically resulting in a Denial of Service. CWE: CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write Description: The key-wrap OID is potentially attacker-controlled on the wire. CMS unwrapping allows both id-aesNNN-wrap-pad and id-aesNNN-wrap ciphers. An attacker can take a legitimate message and change a single OID byte to select the padded variant while leaving the message otherwise valid. Since the unwrap key is derived from the recipient's private operation (ECDH key agreement or ML-KEM decapsulation), the RFC 5649 integrity check cannot pass, and the decryption fails with integrity failure. The write is a fixed-size (8-byte), fixed-value (zero) heap overflow immediately past the allocation, requires no special configuration, and is reachable from the public CMS_decrypt() function. The consequence is a heap corruption leading to a Denial of Service. The fix in the CMS code sizes the unwrap output buffer for the worst case so a failed unwrap cannot write past the allocation. FIPS impact: no As the CMS code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.•CVE-2026-63072

References

Sources include official advisories and independent security research.