Every CVE Search/ Get API key

CVE-2026-71887

OpenPGP data signature accepted from a signing subkey without cross-certification

8.2 HighFix available

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

Attack profile

How easy it is to exploit

Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
None
User interaction
None

What an attacker can affect

Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Exploit likelihood

0.09%Unchanged since Oct 3, 2026
90%50%10%1%

What each source reports

CVE List Score used 8.2

OpenPGP data signature accepted from a signing subkey without cross-certification

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

Record
CVE-2026-71887
CVSS 4.0
8.2 HighCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber
Weakness
CWE-347, CWE-345
Updated
2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2026-91993 8.2

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

Record
EUVD-2026-91993
CVSS 4.0
8.2 HighCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber
Updated
2026-11-02
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-cwf6-pghv-hq93 8.2

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made...

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

Record
GHSA-cwf6-pghv-hq93
CVSS 4.0
8.2 HighCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber
Weakness
CWE-345
Updated
2026-11-02
NVD 8.2

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

Record
CVE-2026-71887
CVSS 4.0
8.2 HighCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber
Weakness
CWE-345, CWE-347
Updated
2026-11-02
OSV 8.2

OpenPGP data signature accepted from a signing subkey without cross-certification

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

Record
CVE-2026-71887
CVSS 4.0
8.2 HighCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber
Weakness
CWE-345, CWE-347
Updated
2026-11-04
OSVDEBIAN-CVE-2026-71887 8.2

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

Record
DEBIAN-CVE-2026-71887
CVSS 4.0
8.2 HighCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber
Updated
2026-11-02
Show 5 moreShow less
OSVUBUNTU-CVE-2026-71887 8.2

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

Record
UBUNTU-CVE-2026-71887
CVSS 4.0
8.2 HighCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVopenSUSE-SU-2026:12090-1 No score

bouncycastle-1.86-1.1 on GA media

These are all security issues fixed in the bouncycastle-1.86-1.1 package on the GA media of openSUSE Tumbleweed.

Record
openSUSE-SU-2026:12090-1
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVopenSUSE-SU-2026:22169-1 No score

Security update for bouncycastle

This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:

Update to 1.86:

  • CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion (bsc#1284075).
  • CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).
  • CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel attacks (bsc#1284065).
  • CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks (bsc#1284205).
  • CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group message interception (bsc#1284165).
  • CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).
  • CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust context spoofing (bsc#1284213).
  • CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute injection (bsc#1284215).
  • CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses (bsc#1284218).
  • CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and session takeover (bsc#1284219).
  • CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses (bsc#1284220).
  • CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived content keys (bsc#1284221).
  • CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).
  • CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284224).
Record
openSUSE-SU-2026:22169-1
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVSUSE-SU-2026:24461-1 No score

Security update for bouncycastle

This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:

Update to 1.86:

  • CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion (bsc#1284075).
  • CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).
  • CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel attacks (bsc#1284065).
  • CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks (bsc#1284205).
  • CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group message interception (bsc#1284165).
  • CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).
  • CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust context spoofing (bsc#1284213).
  • CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute injection (bsc#1284215).
  • CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses (bsc#1284218).
  • CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and session takeover (bsc#1284219).
  • CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses (bsc#1284220).
  • CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived content keys (bsc#1284221).
  • CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).
  • CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284224).
Record
SUSE-SU-2026:24461-1
Updated
2026-11-04
OSVSUSE-SU-2026:4797-1 No score

Security update for bouncycastle

This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:

  • CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion (bsc#1284075).
  • CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).
  • CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel attacks (bsc#1284065).
  • CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks (bsc#1284205).
  • CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group message interception (bsc#1284165).
  • CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).
  • CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust context spoofing (bsc#1284213).
  • CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute injection (bsc#1284215).
  • CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses (bsc#1284218).
  • CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and session takeover (bsc#1284219).
  • CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses (bsc#1284220).
  • CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived content keys (bsc#1284221).
  • CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).
  • CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284224).

Changes for bouncycastle:

  • Updated to version 1.86.
Record
SUSE-SU-2026:4797-1
Updated
2026-11-02

Affected products

Affected packages

Affected packages
PackageAffectedFixed
bouncycastle
Debian:12
All versions, plus listed versions
1.72-21.77-11.80-11.80-21.80-31.86-1
None known
bouncycastle
Debian:13
All versions, plus listed versions
1.80-31.86-1
None known
bouncycastle
Debian:14
before 1.86-1, plus listed versions
1.80-3
1.86-1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-160000.1.1
1.86-160000.1.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.0
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-160000.1.1
1.86-160000.1.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Development Tools 15 SP7
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-ESPOS
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-LTSS
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP5-ESPOS
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP5-LTSS
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
Show 15 moreShow less
Affected packages
PackageAffectedFixed
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP4-LTSS
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP5-LTSS
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP6-LTSS
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP4
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP5
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP6
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-150200.3.41.1
1.86-150200.3.41.1
bouncycastle
Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
1.49+dfsg-3ubuntu11.51-4ubuntu11.51-4ubuntu1+esm1
None known
bouncycastle
Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
1.57-11.58-11.59-11.59-1ubuntu0.1~esm1
None known
bouncycastle
Ubuntu:Pro:20.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
1.61-11.61-1ubuntu0.1~esm1
None known
bouncycastle
Ubuntu:Pro:22.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
1.68-21.68-41.68-51.68-5ubuntu0.1~esm1
None known
bouncycastle
Ubuntu:Pro:24.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
1.72-21.77-11.77-1ubuntu0.1~esm1
None known
bouncycastle
Ubuntu:26.10
All versions, plus listed versions
1.80-3
None known
bouncycastle
Ubuntu:26.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
1.80-3
None known
bouncycastle
openSUSE:Tumbleweed
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-1.1
1.86-1.1
bouncycastle
openSUSE:Leap 16.0
From an advisory covering 14 CVEs
before 1.86-160000.1.1
1.86-160000.1.1

History

History
RecordedChangedSources
affected
affected, aliases, facts, referencesOSV
first indexedCVE List, EUVD, GitHub Advisories, NVD, OSV

Dates are when Every CVE recorded each change. Upstream dates may differ.

In short

CVE-2026-71887 is a high vulnerability (CVSS 8.2) in Legion Of The Bouncy Castle Inc. Bc-java, published October 3, 2026. No source lists public exploit code. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.09%, the 0th percentile. Fixed in bouncycastle 1.86-1.

References

Show 34 moreShow less
MoveEnter Open