{"id":"CVE-2026-17507","aliases":["DEBIAN-CVE-2026-17507","EUVD-2026-91235","GHSA-x7w3-c4mv-whm4","SUSE-SU-2026:24461-1","SUSE-SU-2026:4797-1","UBUNTU-CVE-2026-17507","openSUSE-SU-2026:12090-1","openSUSE-SU-2026:22169-1"],"status":"published","title":"MLS membership checks compare a uint32 leaf_index as signed, admitting an out-of-range sender","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.","severity":{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high","assessor":"cna","from":"cve"},"epss":{"day":"2026-11-11","score":0.0042,"percentile":0.36744,"model":"v2026.06.15"},"facts":{"in_kev":false,"known_exploited":false,"public_exploit":false,"fix_available":true},"cwes":["CWE-195"],"published":"2026-10-02T07:26:34Z","modified":"2026-11-04T17:27:22Z","fixes":[{"ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"bouncycastle","fixed_in":["1.86-1"],"sources":["osv"]}],"affected":[{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:12","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.72-2","1.77-1","1.80-1","1.80-2","1.80-3","1.86-1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:13","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.80-3","1.86-1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-1"}]}],"versions":["1.80-3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.0","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Development Tools 15 SP7","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-ESPOS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP5-ESPOS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP5-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP5-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP6-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP4","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP5","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP6","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.49+dfsg-3ubuntu1","1.51-4ubuntu1","1.51-4ubuntu1+esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.57-1","1.58-1","1.59-1","1.59-1ubuntu0.1~esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:20.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.61-1","1.61-1ubuntu0.1~esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:22.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.68-2","1.68-4","1.68-5","1.68-5ubuntu0.1~esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:24.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.72-2","1.77-1","1.77-1ubuntu0.1~esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.10","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.80-3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.80-3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Tumbleweed","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-1.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Leap 16.0","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":14}],"products":[{"vendor":"bouncycastle","product":"bc-java"},{"vendor":"legion of the bouncy castle inc.","product":"bc-java"}],"references":[{"url":"https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9017507","tags":["vendor-advisory","Patch","Vendor Advisory","advisory","report"]},{"url":"https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/1eb83471eb01727bfdb944a5a46355cc77d55f44","tags":["patch","Patch","fix","report"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-17507","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-x7w3-c4mv-whm4"},{"url":"https://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java/","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2026/17xxx/CVE-2026-17507.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java","tags":["package"]},{"url":"https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-17507","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202624461-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284065","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284073","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284075","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284165","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284205","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284212","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284213","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284215","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284218","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284219","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284220","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284221","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284222","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284224","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-17507","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-17508","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18036","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18040","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71885","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71886","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71887","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71888","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71889","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71890","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71891","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71892","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85515","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-97873","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-20264797-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-17507","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-17507","tags":["report"]},{"url":"","tags":["advisory"]}],"sources":{"cve":[{"id":"CVE-2026-17507","title":"MLS membership checks compare a uint32 leaf_index as signed, admitting an out-of-range sender","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T07:26:34.739Z","modified":"2026-10-02T17:43:56.738Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high","assessor":"cna"}],"cwes":["CWE-195"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:19:54.84674Z"}],"euvd":[{"id":"EUVD-2026-91235","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T07:26:34Z","modified":"2026-10-02T17:43:56Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T17:27:42.349288Z"}],"ghsa":[{"id":"GHSA-x7w3-c4mv-whm4","title":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC...","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T09:31:19Z","modified":"2026-10-14T21:34:12Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","level":"high"},{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-195"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:13:29.286626Z"}],"nvd":[{"id":"CVE-2026-17507","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T08:17:01.31Z","modified":"2026-10-14T18:59:38.483Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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","level":"high","assessor":"secondary"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","level":"high","assessor":"primary"}],"cwes":["CWE-195"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:12:53.41762Z"}],"osv":[{"id":"CVE-2026-17507","title":"MLS membership checks compare a uint32 leaf_index as signed, admitting an out-of-range sender","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T07:26:34.739Z","modified":"2026-11-04T17:27:22.40926335Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-195"],"updated_at":"2026-11-04T17:42:06.569873Z"},{"id":"DEBIAN-CVE-2026-17507","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T08:17:01.31Z","modified":"2026-10-15T10:02:42.329639708Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:45:52.562592Z"},{"id":"UBUNTU-CVE-2026-17507","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-02T08:17:00Z","modified":"2026-10-17T12:58:06.434817289Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:56:01.334185Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:12090-1","title":"bouncycastle-1.86-1.1 on GA media","description":"These are all security issues fixed in the bouncycastle-1.86-1.1 package on the GA media of openSUSE Tumbleweed.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-09T00:00:00Z","modified":"2026-10-10T17:23:22.29222791Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:40.245664Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:22169-1","title":"Security update for bouncycastle","description":"This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:\n\nUpdate to 1.86:\n\n- CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion\n  (bsc#1284075).\n- CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).\n- CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel\n  attacks (bsc#1284065).\n- CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks\n  (bsc#1284205).\n- CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group\n  message interception (bsc#1284165).\n- CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and\n  identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).\n- CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust\n  context spoofing (bsc#1284213).\n- CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute\n  injection (bsc#1284215).\n- CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses\n  (bsc#1284218).\n- CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and\n  session takeover (bsc#1284219).\n- CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses\n  (bsc#1284220).\n- CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived\n  content keys (bsc#1284221).\n- CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors\n  and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).\n- CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource\n  exhaustion (bsc#1284224).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-10-26T13:05:47Z","modified":"2026-11-01T17:23:28.414155623Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:42.426393Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:24461-1","title":"Security update for bouncycastle","description":"This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:\n\nUpdate to 1.86:\n\n- CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion\n  (bsc#1284075).\n- CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).\n- CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel\n  attacks (bsc#1284065).\n- CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks\n  (bsc#1284205).\n- CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group\n  message interception (bsc#1284165).\n- CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and\n  identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).\n- CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust\n  context spoofing (bsc#1284213).\n- CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute\n  injection (bsc#1284215).\n- CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses\n  (bsc#1284218).\n- CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and\n  session takeover (bsc#1284219).\n- CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses\n  (bsc#1284220).\n- CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived\n  content keys (bsc#1284221).\n- CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors\n  and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).\n- CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource\n  exhaustion (bsc#1284224).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-10-26T13:14:44Z","modified":"2026-11-04T17:23:17.638528053Z","updated_at":"2026-11-04T17:43:22.558805Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:4797-1","title":"Security update for bouncycastle","description":"This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:\n\n- CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion\n  (bsc#1284075).\n- CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).\n- CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel\n  attacks (bsc#1284065).\n- CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks\n  (bsc#1284205).\n- CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group\n  message interception (bsc#1284165).\n- CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and\n  identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).\n- CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust\n  context spoofing (bsc#1284213).\n- CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute\n  injection (bsc#1284215).\n- CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses\n  (bsc#1284218).\n- CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and\n  session takeover (bsc#1284219).\n- CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses\n  (bsc#1284220).\n- CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived\n  content keys (bsc#1284221).\n- CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors\n  and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).\n- CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource\n  exhaustion (bsc#1284224).\n\nChanges for bouncycastle:\n\n- Updated to version 1.86.\n","status":"published","published":"2026-10-21T07:54:59Z","modified":"2026-10-21T20:02:15.286117133Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:05.838224Z"}]}}