CVE-2026-71887
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.
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
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 High
CVSS: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 High
CVSS: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 High
CVSS: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 High
CVSS: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 High
CVSS: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 High
CVSS: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 High
CVSS: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
| Package | Affected | Fixed |
|---|---|---|
bouncycastleDebian:12 |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.72-21.77-11.80-11.80-21.80-31.86-1 |
None known |
bouncycastleDebian:13 |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.80-31.86-1 |
None known |
bouncycastleDebian:14 |
before 1.86-1, plus listed versions 1.80-3 |
1.86-1 |
bouncycastleSUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0 From an advisory covering 14 CVEs |
before 1.86-160000.1.1 | 1.86-160000.1.1 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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
| Package | Affected | Fixed |
|---|---|---|
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleSUSE: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 |
bouncycastleUbuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.49+dfsg-3ubuntu11.51-4ubuntu11.51-4ubuntu1+esm1 |
None known |
bouncycastleUbuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.57-11.58-11.59-11.59-1ubuntu0.1~esm1 |
None known |
bouncycastleUbuntu:Pro:20.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.61-11.61-1ubuntu0.1~esm1 |
None known |
bouncycastleUbuntu:Pro:22.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.68-21.68-41.68-51.68-5ubuntu0.1~esm1 |
None known |
bouncycastleUbuntu:Pro:24.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.72-21.77-11.77-1ubuntu0.1~esm1 |
None known |
bouncycastleUbuntu:26.10 |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.80-3 |
None known |
bouncycastleUbuntu:26.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.80-3 |
None known |
bouncycastleopenSUSE:Tumbleweed From an advisory covering 14 CVEs |
before 1.86-1.1 | 1.86-1.1 |
bouncycastleopenSUSE:Leap 16.0 From an advisory covering 14 CVEs |
before 1.86-160000.1.1 | 1.86-160000.1.1 |
History
| Recorded | Changed | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| affected | ||
| affected, aliases, facts, references | OSV | |
| first indexed | CVE 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
github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9071887
github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/b51452fa48ccb578fc16b8222fce9eedf92c94d6
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-71887
github.com/advisories/GHSA-cwf6-pghv-hq93
bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java
github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2026/71xxx/CVE-2026-71887.json
Show 34 moreShow less
github.com/bcgit/bc-java
security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-71887
suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202624461-1
bugzilla.suse.com/1284065
bugzilla.suse.com/1284073
bugzilla.suse.com/1284075
bugzilla.suse.com/1284165
bugzilla.suse.com/1284205
bugzilla.suse.com/1284212
bugzilla.suse.com/1284213
bugzilla.suse.com/1284215
bugzilla.suse.com/1284218
bugzilla.suse.com/1284219
bugzilla.suse.com/1284220
bugzilla.suse.com/1284221
bugzilla.suse.com/1284222
bugzilla.suse.com/1284224
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-17507
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-17508
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18036
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18040
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71885
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71886
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71887
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71888
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71889
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71890
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71891
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71892
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85515
suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-97873
suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-20264797-1
ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-71887
cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-71887