CVE-2026-71892
CMS key-transport recipient key-size validation never runs for RFC 9709 HKDF-derived keys
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Exploit likelihood
What each source reports
CVE List Score used
6.9
CMS key-transport recipient key-size validation never runs for RFC 9709 HKDF-derived keys
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
- Record
CVE-2026-71892- CVSS 4.0
- 6.9 Medium
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber - Weakness
- CWE-697
- Updated
- 2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2026-91989
6.9
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
- Record
EUVD-2026-91989- CVSS 4.0
- 6.9 Medium
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber - Updated
- 2026-11-02
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-x42w-4gqh-qrvm
6.9
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport...
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
- Record
GHSA-x42w-4gqh-qrvm- CVSS 4.0
- 6.9 Medium
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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-697
- Updated
- 2026-11-02
NVD
6.9
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
- Record
CVE-2026-71892- CVSS 4.0
- 6.9 Medium
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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-697
- Updated
- 2026-11-02
OSV
6.9
CMS key-transport recipient key-size validation never runs for RFC 9709 HKDF-derived keys
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
- Record
CVE-2026-71892- CVSS 4.0
- 6.9 Medium
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber - Weakness
- CWE-697
- Updated
- 2026-11-04
OSVDEBIAN-CVE-2026-71892
6.9
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
- Record
DEBIAN-CVE-2026-71892- CVSS 4.0
- 6.9 Medium
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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-2026-71892
6.9
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
- Record
UBUNTU-CVE-2026-71892- CVSS 4.0
- 6.9 Medium
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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-2026-71892 is a medium vulnerability (CVSS 6.9) in Legion Of The Bouncy Castle Inc. Bc-fja, published October 3, 2026. No source lists public exploit code. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.17%, the 6th percentile. Fixed in bouncycastle 1.86-1.
References
github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9071892
github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/be0a7d925c818ef2f338bcec55178b9b6336dfc3
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-71892
github.com/advisories/GHSA-x42w-4gqh-qrvm
bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java-fips
bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java
Show 35 moreShow less
github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2026/71xxx/CVE-2026-71892.json
github.com/bcgit/bc-java
security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-71892
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-2026-71892
cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-71892