{"id":"CVE-2026-34182","aliases":["ALPINE-CVE-2026-34182","ALSA-2026:25237","ALSA-2026:25239","AZL-89802","AZL-89861","AZL-89931","BELL-CVE-2026-34182","DEBIAN-CVE-2026-34182","EUVD-2026-35478","GHSA-f9v2-4w9p-2cwc","JLSEC-2026-1135","MGASA-2026-0253","OESA-2026-2772","OESA-2026-2773","OESA-2026-2781","OESA-2026-2782","RHSA-2026:25237","RHSA-2026:25239","RHSA-2026:42825","RHSA-2026:55543","RHSA-2026:59635","RHSA-2026:59641","RHSA-2026:62562","RHSA-2026:62563","RHSA-2026:62790","RHSA-2026:67551","RHSA-2026:71542","RHSA-2026:83617","RHSA-2026:84572","RHSA-2026:84573","RLSA-2026:25237","RLSA-2026:25239","ROOT-OS-ALPINE-317-CVE-2026-34182","SUSE-RU-2026:5018-1","SUSE-SU-2026:22100-1","SUSE-SU-2026:22132-1","SUSE-SU-2026:22251-1","SUSE-SU-2026:22315-1","SUSE-SU-2026:2393-1","SUSE-SU-2026:3005-1","SUSE-SU-2026:3094-1","SUSE-SU-2026:3835-1","UBUNTU-CVE-2026-34182","openSUSE-SU-2026:11023-1","openSUSE-SU-2026:21005-1"],"status":"published","title":"CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","severity":{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical","assessor":"adp","from":"cve"},"epss":{"day":"2026-11-10","score":0.01057,"percentile":0.6473,"model":"v2026.06.15"},"facts":{"in_kev":false,"known_exploited":false,"public_exploit":false,"fix_available":true},"cwes":["CWE-354"],"published":"2026-06-09T00:00:00Z","modified":"2026-11-05T05:40:51Z","fixes":[{"ecosystem":"Alpine:v3.21","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.3.7-r1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Alpine:v3.22","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.7-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Alpine:v3.23","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.7-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Alpine:v3.24","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.7-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Azure Linux:3","package":"edk2","fixed_in":["20240524git3e722403cd16-18"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Azure Linux:3","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.3.7-3"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Alpaquita:23","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.0.21-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Alpaquita:25","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.7-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Alpaquita:stream","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.7-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"BellSoft Hardened Containers:23","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.0.21-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"BellSoft Hardened Containers:25","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.7-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"BellSoft Hardened Containers:stream","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.7-r0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Debian:12","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.0.20-1~deb12u2"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Debian:13","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.6-1~deb13u2"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.6.3-1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Julia","package":"AppBundler","fixed_in":["1.0.1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Julia","package":"OpenSSL_jll","fixed_in":["3.5.7+0"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Root:Alpine:3.17","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.0.19-r00079","3.0.19-r00077","3.0.19-r00078"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Root:Alpine:3.17","package":"rootio-openssl","fixed_in":["3.0.19-r00079","3.0.19-r00077","3.0.19-r00078"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Micro 5.3","package":"openssl-3","fixed_in":["3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Micro 5.4","package":"openssl-3","fixed_in":["3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-ESPOS","package":"openssl-3","fixed_in":["3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","fixed_in":["3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","fixed_in":["3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP4","package":"openssl-3","fixed_in":["3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Ubuntu:22.04:LTS","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.0.2-0ubuntu1.25"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-updates:22.04:LTS","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.0.2-0ubuntu1.25+Fips1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Ubuntu:24.04:LTS","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.0.13-0ubuntu3.11"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-updates:24.04:LTS","package":"openssl-fips","fixed_in":["3.0.13-0ubuntu3.12+Fips1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Ubuntu:25.10","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.3-1ubuntu3.4"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"openssl","fixed_in":["3.5.5-1ubuntu3.2"],"sources":["osv"]}],"affected":[{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Alpine:v3.21","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.0.0"},{"fixed":"3.3.7-r1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Alpine:v3.22","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.0.0"},{"fixed":"3.5.7-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Alpine:v3.23","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.0.0"},{"fixed":"3.5.7-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Alpine:v3.24","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.0.0"},{"fixed":"3.5.7-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"AlmaLinux:10","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2.alma.1"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"AlmaLinux:10","package":"openssl-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2.alma.1"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"AlmaLinux:10","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2.alma.1"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"AlmaLinux:10","package":"openssl-perl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2.alma.1"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"AlmaLinux:9","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"AlmaLinux:9","package":"openssl-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"AlmaLinux:9","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"AlmaLinux:9","package":"openssl-perl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Azure Linux:3","package":"openssl-fips-provider","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"last_affected":"3.1.2-2"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Azure Linux:3","package":"edk2","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"20240524git3e722403cd16-18"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Azure Linux:3","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.3.7-3"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Alpaquita:23","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.0.8-r4"},{"fixed":"3.0.21-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Alpaquita:25","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.5.0-r0"},{"fixed":"3.5.7-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Alpaquita:stream","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.1.1-r1"},{"fixed":"3.5.7-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"BellSoft Hardened Containers:23","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.0.8-r4"},{"fixed":"3.0.21-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"BellSoft Hardened Containers:25","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.5.0-r0"},{"fixed":"3.5.7-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"BellSoft Hardened Containers:stream","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"3.1.1-r1"},{"fixed":"3.5.7-r0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:12","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.20-1~deb12u2"}]}],"versions":["3.0.10-1","3.0.10-1~deb12u1","3.0.11-1","3.0.11-1~deb12u1","3.0.11-1~deb12u2","3.0.12-1","3.0.12-2","3.0.13-1~deb12u1","3.0.13-1~deb12u2","3.0.14-1~deb12u1","3.0.14-1~deb12u2","3.0.15-1~deb12u1","3.0.16-1~deb12u1","3.0.17-1~deb12u1","3.0.17-1~deb12u2","3.0.17-1~deb12u3","3.0.18-1~deb12u1","3.0.18-1~deb12u2","3.0.19-1~deb12u1","3.0.19-1~deb12u2","3.0.20-1~deb12u1","3.0.9-1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:13","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.6-1~deb13u2"}]}],"versions":["3.5.1-1","3.5.1-1+deb13u1","3.5.2-1","3.5.3-1","3.5.4-1","3.5.4-1~deb13u1","3.5.4-1~deb13u2","3.5.5-1","3.5.5-1~deb13u1","3.5.5-1~deb13u2","3.5.6-1~deb13u1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.6.3-1"}]}],"versions":["3.5.1-1","3.5.2-1","3.5.3-1","3.5.4-1","3.5.4-1~deb13u1","3.5.4-1~deb13u2","3.5.5-1","3.5.5-1~deb13u1","3.5.5-1~deb13u2","3.5.6-1~deb13u1","3.5.6-1~deb13u2","3.5.7-1~deb13u1","3.5.7-1~deb13u2","3.5.7-1~deb13u3","3.6.0-1","3.6.0-2","3.6.0~~alpha1-1","3.6.0~~beta1-1","3.6.1-1","3.6.1-2","3.6.1-3","3.6.2-1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Julia","package":"AppBundler","ranges":[{"type":"SEMVER","events":[{"introduced":"1.0.0"},{"fixed":"1.0.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Julia","package":"OpenSSL_jll","ranges":[{"type":"SEMVER","events":[{"introduced":"3.0.8+0"},{"fixed":"3.5.7+0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Julia","package":"Openresty_jll","ranges":[{"type":"SEMVER","events":[{"introduced":"1.27.1+0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Mageia:10","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.7-1.mga10"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Mageia:9","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.21-1.mga9"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP1","package":"edk2","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"202308-37.oe2403sp1"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP3","package":"edk2","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"202308-41.oe2403sp3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP1","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.12-52.oe2403sp1"}]}],"bundled":10},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP3","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.12-52.oe2403sp3"}]}],"bundled":9},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:10.2","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:10.2","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:10.2","package":"openssl-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:10.2","package":"openssl-libs-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:10.2","package":"openssl-perl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:10.2","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:10.2","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::appstream","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::appstream","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::appstream","package":"openssl-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::appstream","package":"openssl-libs-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::appstream","package":"openssl-perl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::baseos","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::baseos","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::baseos","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::baseos","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux:9::baseos","package":"openssl-libs-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"chunkah","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.6.0-3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"python-cryptography","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:50.0.0-1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":24},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"python3-cryptography","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:50.0.0-1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":24},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":27},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl3-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":27},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl3-devel-engine","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":27},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl3-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":27},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":28},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl-config-fips","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":28},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":28},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl-devel-engine","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":28},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl-fips-provider-upstream","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":28},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":28},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"openssl-perl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.8-0.1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":28},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.3.10-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.3-bundled-gems","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.3.10-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.3-default-gems","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.3.10-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.3-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.3.10-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.3-doc","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.3.10-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.3-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.3.10-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-bigdecimal","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.1.5-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-bundler","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:2.5.22-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.22-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-io-console","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.7.1-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-irb","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:1.13.1-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-json","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:2.7.2-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-minitest","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:5.20.0-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-power_assert","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:2.0.3-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-psych","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:5.1.2-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-racc","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:1.7.3-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-rake","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:13.1.0-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-rbs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.0-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-rdoc","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:6.6.3.1-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-rexml","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.4-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-rss","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.3.1-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-rubygems","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.5.22-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-test-unit","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.6.1-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem3.3-typeprof","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.21.9-23.6.hum1"}]}],"bundled":22},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby4.0","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.6-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby4.0-bundled-gems","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.6-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby4.0-default-gems","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.6-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby4.0-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.6-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby4.0-doc","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.6-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby4.0-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.6-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-bigdecimal","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.1-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-bundler","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.16-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.16-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-io-console","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.8.2-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-irb","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:1.16.0-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-json","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:2.18.0-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-minitest","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:6.0.0-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-power_assert","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.0.1-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-psych","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:5.3.1-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-racc","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:1.8.1-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-rake","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:13.3.1-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-rbs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.10.0-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-rdoc","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:7.0.4-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-rexml","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.4-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-rss","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.3.2-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-rubygems","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:4.0.16-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-test-unit","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.7.5-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rubygem4.0-typeprof","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.31.1-37.3.hum1"}]}],"bundled":21},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.4","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.10-31.7.hum1"}]}],"bundled":19},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.4-bundled-gems","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.10-31.7.hum1"}]}],"bundled":19},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.4-default-gems","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.10-31.7.hum1"}]}],"bundled":19},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.4-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.10-31.7.hum1"}]}],"bundled":19},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.4-doc","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.10-31.7.hum1"}]}],"bundled":19},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"ruby3.4-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:3.4.10-31.7.hum1"}]}],"bundled":19},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"bootupd","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.3.2-1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":19},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:hummingbird:1","package":"rust-bootupd","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0:0.3.2-1.hum1"}]}],"bundled":19},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux_eus:10.0","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-16.el10_0.7"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux_eus:10.0","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-16.el10_0.7"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux_eus:10.0","package":"openssl-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-16.el10_0.7"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux_eus:10.0","package":"openssl-perl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-16.el10_0.7"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux_eus:10.0","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-16.el10_0.7"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:enterprise_linux_eus:10.0","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-16.el10_0.7"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_eus:9.6::appstream","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-7.el9_6.4"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_eus:9.6::appstream","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-7.el9_6.4"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_eus:9.6::appstream","package":"openssl-devel","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-7.el9_6.4"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_eus:9.6::appstream","package":"openssl-perl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-7.el9_6.4"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_eus:9.6::baseos","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-7.el9_6.4"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_eus:9.6::baseos","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-7.el9_6.4"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_eus:9.6::baseos","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-7.el9_6.4"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_eus:9.6::baseos","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.2.2-7.el9_6.4"}]}],"bundled":7},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.2::appstream","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-18.el9_2.4"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.2::appstream","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-18.el9_2.4"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.2::baseos","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-18.el9_2.4"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.2::baseos","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-18.el9_2.4"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.2::baseos","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-18.el9_2.4"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.2::baseos","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-18.el9_2.4"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.4::appstream","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-29.el9_4.3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.4::appstream","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-29.el9_4.3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.4::appstream","package":"openssl-libs-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-29.el9_4.3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.4::baseos","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-29.el9_4.3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.4::baseos","package":"openssl-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-29.el9_4.3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.4::baseos","package":"openssl-debugsource","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-29.el9_4.3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.4::baseos","package":"openssl-libs","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-29.el9_4.3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Red Hat:rhel_e4s:9.4::baseos","package":"openssl-libs-debuginfo","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.0.7-29.el9_4.3"}]}],"bundled":6},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Rocky Linux:10","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el10_2"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Rocky Linux:9","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:3.5.5-4.el9_8"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Root:Alpine:3.17","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.19-r00079"},{"fixed":"3.0.19-r00077"},{"fixed":"3.0.19-r00078"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Root:Alpine:3.17","package":"rootio-openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.19-r00079"},{"fixed":"3.0.19-r00077"},{"fixed":"3.0.19-r00078"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Micro 5.3","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Micro 5.4","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-ESPOS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP4","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.104.1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Micro 6.0","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.1.4-14.1"}]}],"bundled":9},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Micro 6.1","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.1.4-slfo.1.1_10.1"}]}],"bundled":11},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Micro 6.2","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.0-160000.8.1"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.0-160000.8.1"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.0","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.0-160000.8.1"}]}],"bundled":15},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP6-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.1.4-150600.5.53.1"}]}],"bundled":9},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP6","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.1.4-150600.5.53.1"}]}],"bundled":9},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP5-ESPOS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150500.5.69.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP5-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150500.5.69.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP5-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150500.5.69.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP5","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150500.5.69.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Micro 5.3","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.90.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Micro 5.4","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.90.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-ESPOS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.90.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.90.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.90.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP4","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.8-150400.4.90.1"}]}],"bundled":2},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Basesystem 15 SP7","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.0-150700.3.4.1"}]}],"bundled":4},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Basesystem 15 SP7","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.0-150700.5.45.2"}]}],"bundled":4},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Web and Scripting 15 SP7","package":"nodejs24","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"24.18.1-150700.15.18.1"}]}],"bundled":4},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:22.04:LTS","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.2-0ubuntu1.25"}]}],"versions":["1.1.1l-1ubuntu1","3.0.0-1ubuntu1","3.0.1-0ubuntu1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.2","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.4","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.5","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.6","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.7","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.8","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.9","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.10","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.12","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.13","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.14","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.15","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.16","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.17","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.18","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.19","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.20","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.21","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.23"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-preview:22.04:LTS","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["3.0.2-0ubuntu1.10+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.12+Fips1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-preview:22.04:LTS","package":"openssl-fips","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["3.0.5-0ubuntu0.1+Fips2.1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-updates:22.04:LTS","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.2-0ubuntu1.25+Fips1"}]}],"versions":["3.0.2-0ubuntu1.10+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.12+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.14+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.15+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.16+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.17+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.18+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.19+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.20+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.21+Fips1","3.0.2-0ubuntu1.23+Fips1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-updates:22.04:LTS","package":"openssl-fips","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["3.0.5-0ubuntu0.1+Fips2.1","3.0.5-0ubuntu0.2+Fips1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:24.04:LTS","package":"edk2","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["2023.05-2","2023.11-2","2023.11-3","2023.11-4","2023.11-5","2023.11-6","2023.11-8","2024.02-1","2024.02-2","2024.02-2ubuntu0.1","2024.02-2ubuntu0.3","2024.02-2ubuntu0.4","2024.02-2ubuntu0.5","2024.02-2ubuntu0.6","2024.02-2ubuntu0.7","2024.02-2ubuntu0.8","2024.02-2ubuntu0.9","2024.02-2ubuntu0.10"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:24.04:LTS","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.13-0ubuntu3.11"}]}],"versions":["3.0.10-1ubuntu2","3.0.10-1ubuntu2.1","3.0.10-1ubuntu3","3.0.10-1ubuntu4","3.0.13-0ubuntu2","3.0.13-0ubuntu3","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.1","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.2","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.3","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.4","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.5","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.6","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.7","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.9"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-updates:24.04:LTS","package":"openssl-fips","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.0.13-0ubuntu3.12+Fips1"}]}],"versions":["3.0.13-0ubuntu3+Fips1","3.0.13-0ubuntu3.6+Fips1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:25.10","package":"edk2","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["2025.02-3ubuntu2","2025.02-8","2025.02-8ubuntu1","2025.02-8ubuntu2","2025.02-8ubuntu3","2025.02-8ubuntu3.1","2025.02-8ubuntu3.2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:25.10","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.3-1ubuntu3.4"}]}],"versions":["3.4.1-1ubuntu3","3.5.0-2ubuntu1","3.5.2-1ubuntu1","3.5.3-1ubuntu2","3.5.3-1ubuntu3","3.5.3-1ubuntu3.3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.10","package":"edk2","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["2025.11-3ubuntu7","2025.11-3ubuntu8","2026.05-2ubuntu1","2026.05-2ubuntu2","2026.05-2ubuntu3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.10","package":"edk2-hwe","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["2025.11-3ubuntu8","2025.11-3ubuntu9","2026.05-2ubuntu1","2026.05-2ubuntu2","2026.05-2ubuntu3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"edk2","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["2025.02-8ubuntu3","2025.11-3ubuntu6","2025.11-3ubuntu7","2025.11-3ubuntu7.2","2025.11-3ubuntu7.3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"edk2-hwe","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["2025.11-3ubuntu6","2025.11-3ubuntu8","2025.11-3ubuntu8.2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"openssl","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.5-1ubuntu3.2"}]}],"versions":["3.5.3-1ubuntu2","3.5.5-1ubuntu1","3.5.5-1ubuntu3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Tumbleweed","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.3-6.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Leap 16.0","package":"openssl-3","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"3.5.0-160000.8.1"}]}],"bundled":15}],"products":[{"vendor":"openssl","product":"openssl"}],"references":[{"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt","tags":["vendor-advisory","Vendor Advisory","advisory","web","report"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9fd97f8cfdc2c0be214998de3b2b55c8edf6c7ac","tags":["patch","Patch","fix","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/439ed7d2c0962ce964482727264668bf277c333f","tags":["patch","Patch","fix","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7947e6a81eb8776802f159fb6762cb7fcf7e34c7","tags":["patch","Patch","fix","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d2ca86bcd43e4f17d899f347101766b6107676e0","tags":["patch","Patch","fix","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/03c1f4d45fb963aee7d5833390c507cd290182bc","tags":["patch","Patch","fix","web"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34182","tags":["web","advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/security/commit/03c1f4d45fb963aee7d5833390c507cd290182bc","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/security/commit/439ed7d2c0962ce964482727264668bf277c333f","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/security/commit/7947e6a81eb8776802f159fb6762cb7fcf7e34c7","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/security/commit/9fd97f8cfdc2c0be214998de3b2b55c8edf6c7ac","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/security/commit/d2ca86bcd43e4f17d899f347101766b6107676e0","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-f9v2-4w9p-2cwc","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://security.alpinelinux.org/vuln/CVE-2026-34182","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:25237","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34180","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34181","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34182","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34183","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42764","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42766","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42767","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42768","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42769","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42770","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45445","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45446","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45447","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-7383","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-9076","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481879","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481880","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481881","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481882","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481884","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481885","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481887","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481890","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481891","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481892","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481893","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481894","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481896","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481897","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2481898","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://errata.almalinux.org/10/ALSA-2026-25237.html","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:25239","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://errata.almalinux.org/9/ALSA-2026-25239.html","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://docs.bell-sw.com/security/cves/CVE-2026-34182","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2026/34xxx/CVE-2026-34182.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-34182","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://advisories.mageia.org/MGASA-2026-0253.html","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35662","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/06/09/15","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-8414-1","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2026/msg00245.html","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/M6FSVWKLYXUHNRSEKJHJA6OVPW64N45U/","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/security-announce@lists.opensuse.org/message/YTQ27HDP33LD6AS24REY2JEVD6LKVTQQ/","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-2772","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38798","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-2295","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34180","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45445","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-7383","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-9076","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-2773","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-2781","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42766","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42767","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42770","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45446","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45447","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-2782","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/#important","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481879","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481880","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481881","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481882","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481884","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481885","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481887","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481890","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481891","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481892","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481893","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481894","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481896","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481897","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481898","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_25237.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-7383","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9076","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34180","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34181","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34181","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34182","tags":["advisory","report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34183","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34183","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42764","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42764","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42766","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42767","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42768","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42768","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42769","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42769","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42770","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45445","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45446","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45447","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_25239.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42825","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://images.redhat.com/","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54876","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-75803","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42765","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42771","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-35188","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-93599","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_42825.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481886","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35188","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35188","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481889","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42765","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42765","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481895","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42771","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42771","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2511600","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54876","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54876","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/155b5fe0f93365e6df1c56ee3606b121080c6c12","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d8c51048ac037a21bae0f41cad7a3920dc7f3638","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260805.txt","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2523425","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75803","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-75803","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/119ab9555dc62275bbd71f6f49529b1a44feba42","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/3621257986e27e540bf96a11570929a6e5a9e05b","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6c7aa6f8f6449b7fe0137ee8be65fcd239bd7d6a","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bdeb0cd994d915342787f117ee75044f0dc36f34","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf95f5f772e9362f87b25cfa2f8cb15d984865b9","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2538431","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-93599","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-93599","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/rustls/webpki/security/advisories/GHSA-82j2-j2ch-gfr8","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/rustls-webpki-before-0.103.13-panic-via-empty-bit-string","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:55543","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-69248","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-69249","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-69247","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-84782","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_55543.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2510835","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69247","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69247","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/53fccd93413a8d7f07d6d8999681f27b75cffa3f","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/15369","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-g6cj-pr64-35w5","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2510830","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69248","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69248","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/4d035a4225965edeffd312079a510ef25fcfdcb2","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/14888","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-m2h6-j472-rp4c","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2510815","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69249","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69249","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/4a12cf49675a184e47f912b00b04f3a629283582","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/14960","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-jwv3-5hgf-82ww","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2537080","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-84782","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84782","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-84782","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59635","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-63074","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-63073","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-14457","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-63076","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-63075","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-63072","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-54874","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18798","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_59635.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517562","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-14457","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-14457","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517559","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18798","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-18798","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517564","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54874","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54874","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517560","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63072","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63072","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517565","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63073","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63073","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517566","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63074","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63074","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517570","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63075","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63075","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517561","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63076","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63076","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59641","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-84783","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_59641.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2543243","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-84783","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84783","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/de97a1a54f43edefd43b5084ecac54ecadb33081","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260929.txt","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62562","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-80212","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-80213","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_62562.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2525066","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-80212","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-80212","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/ruby/resolv/commit/6393c628b224d0234ef915813c0977e11ebe57ea","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2026/08/27/multiple-vulnerabilities-in-resolv/","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2525014","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-80213","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-80213","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/ruby/resolv/commit/b336e42d6a3e2a824308f7b47fa26a968641b366","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62563","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_62563.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62790","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_62790.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:67551","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_67551.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:71542","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2430381","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2451094","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2456314","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_71542.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-69418","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-69418","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-69418","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-28390","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-28390","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28390","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/01194a8f1941115cd0383bfa91c736dd3993c8bc","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2e39b7a6993be445fddb9fbce316fa756e0397b6","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/af2a5fecd3e71a29e7568f9c1453dec5cebbaff4","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/ea7b4ea4f9f853521ba34830cbcadc970d2e0788","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/fd2f1a6cf53b9ceeca723a001aa4b825d7c7ee75","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260407.txt","tags":["article"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-31790","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-31790","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31790","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:83617","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_83617.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:84572","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_84572.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:84573","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/advisories/2026/rhsa-2026_84573.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://errata.rockylinux.org/RLSA-2026:25237","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://errata.rockylinux.org/RLSA-2026:25239","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/-2026-5018/suse-ru-20265018-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1281325","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34182","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202622100-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266340","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266341","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266342","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266344","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266349","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266353","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266355","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266356","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266357","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34180","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42766","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42770","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45445","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45446","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-45447","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-7383","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-9076","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202622132-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1230698","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1260446","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1261678","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-41996","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-28390","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202622251-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1259652","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266345","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266347","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266350","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266351","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1266352","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-2673","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34183","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42764","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42767","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42768","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42769","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202622315-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-20262393-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-20263005-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-20263094-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-20263835-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1216950","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1243014","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1247463","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1250233","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1257274","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-13176","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-9231","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-34182","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-8414-2","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"","tags":["advisory"]}],"sources":{"cve":[{"id":"CVE-2026-34182","title":"CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T16:03:22.848Z","modified":"2026-06-10T15:58:52.695Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical","assessor":"adp"}],"cwes":["CWE-354"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:20:13.962274Z"}],"euvd":[{"id":"EUVD-2026-35478","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T16:03:22Z","modified":"2026-06-10T15:58:52Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T18:20:45.405546Z"}],"ghsa":[{"id":"GHSA-f9v2-4w9p-2cwc","title":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input...","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T18:30:42Z","modified":"2026-06-10T18:32:45Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"cwes":["CWE-354"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:08:43.963781Z"}],"nvd":[{"id":"CVE-2026-34182","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T17:17:04.857Z","modified":"2026-07-23T08:10:00.137Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical","assessor":"secondary"}],"cwes":["CWE-354"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:12:23.109705Z"}],"osv":[{"id":"ALPINE-CVE-2026-34182","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T17:17:04.857Z","modified":"2026-10-01T02:17:49.253534879Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:27:50.269992Z"},{"id":"BELL-CVE-2026-34182","status":"published","published":"2026-06-10T10:50:26.3652Z","modified":"2026-06-16T07:15:04.989408508Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:28:23.572955Z"},{"id":"CVE-2026-34182","title":"CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T16:03:22.848Z","modified":"2026-11-10T13:27:20.421618399Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"cwes":["CWE-354"],"updated_at":"2026-11-10T14:01:16.56345Z"},{"id":"DEBIAN-CVE-2026-34182","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of AuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.  Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity validation for a given message.  In one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing AuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL erroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the message.  An on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData addressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left byte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK (the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB (Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an attacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the real CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.  If the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator showing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the attacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the CEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.  In another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD cipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long, allowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity bypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.  The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T17:17:04.857Z","modified":"2026-10-01T03:02:37.603099707Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:45:54.587575Z"},{"id":"JLSEC-2026-1135","title":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform sufficient input...","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and `CMS_decrypt()` returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust `CMS_decrypt()` to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-08-03T19:08:57.739Z","modified":"2026-08-13T13:00:03.340568435Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:47:18.159338Z"},{"id":"OESA-2026-2772","title":"edk2 security update","description":"EDK II is a modern, feature-rich, cross-platform firmware development environment for the UEFI and PI specifications.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nEDK2 contains a vulnerability in BIOS where an attacker may cause “Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor” by local access. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability will lead to \n\npossible information disclosure or escalation of privilege\n\n and impact Confidentiality.(CVE-2024-38798)\n\nEDK2 contains a vulnerability in BIOS where a user may cause an Integer Overflow or Wraparound by network means. A successful exploitation of this vulnerability may lead to denial of service.(CVE-2025-2295)\n\nIssue summary: Parsing a crafted DER-encoded ASN.1 structure with a primitive\nelement whose content exceeds 2 gigabytes in length may cause a heap buffer\nover-read on 64-bit Unix and Unix-like platforms.\n\nImpact summary: The heap buffer over-read may crash the application (Denial of\nService) or to load into the decoded ASN.1 object contents of memory beyond the\nend of the input buffer.  More typically such ASN.1 elements would instead be\ntruncated.\n\nAn integer truncation in OpenSSL\u0026apos;s ASN.1 decoder causes the content length of\nan ASN.1 primitive element to be mishandled when it exceeds 2 gigabytes. In the\nworst case the truncated length is treated as a request to scan the binary\ncontent for a terminating zero byte, possibly causing OpenSSL to read either\nless than or beyond the end of the allocated buffer.\n\nApplications that pass attacker-supplied data to d2i_X509(), d2i_PKCS7(), or\nany other d2i_* decoding function are affected. OpenSSL\u0026apos;s own command-line\ntools are not vulnerable, as data read through the BIO layer is checked before\nit reaches the affected code. The issue only affects 64-bit Unix and Unix-like\nplatforms; 32-bit platforms and 64-bit Windows are not affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue,\nas the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-34180)\n\nIssue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim\u0026apos;s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.(CVE-2026-34182)\n\nIssue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the\npublic EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied\ninitialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded.\n\nImpact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the\nsame effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller,\nresulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality.  If the\nsame code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag\ndepends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or\nciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a\nsingle captured message.\n\nOpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming\ninterface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level\none-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends\nagainst use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and\nEVP_CipherFinal_ex().  The OCB provider\u0026apos;s streaming handler flushes\nthe application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing\ndata; the one-shot handler did not.  Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an\nAES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset\nstate left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller\u0026apos;s IV.\n\nIf EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the\nauthentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and\nclears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the\nplaintext.  The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and\nverifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV)\npair.\n\nThe OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a\nTLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case.\nApplications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD\nAPI (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected.  Only\napplications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher()\none-shot API are vulnerable.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by\nthis issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-45445)\n\nIssue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination\nbuffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap\nbuffer overflow.\n\nImpact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly\nattacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour.\n\nIn ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination\nsize for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift\nof the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and\nUNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts\nfor UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches\naround 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30\ncharacters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and\nthe subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the\none-byte allocation.\n\nX.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(),\nwhose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID\nsize limits cap the input length; no network protocol or\ncertificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow.\nTriggering the bug requires an application that calls\nASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers\na custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with\nattacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more.\nFor these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by\nthis issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module\nboundary.(CVE-2026-7383)\n\nIssue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap)\nprocesses attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK\ncipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key().\n\nImpact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to\nDenial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory\npage boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information\ndisclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker.\n\nThe key unwrapping function performs a check-byte test as specified in the\nRFC that reads 7 bytes from a heap allocation that is based on the wrapped\nkey length from the message. There is a minimum length check based on the\nblock length of the wrapping cipher. However the cipher is selected from\nan OID carried in the attacker\u0026apos;s PWRI keyEncryptionAlgorithm with no\nrequirement that the cipher be a block cipher. When an attacker selects\na stream-mode cipher the guard will be ineffective and the allocated buffer\ncontaining the unwrapped key can be too small to fit the check-bytes\nspecified in the RFC and a buffer over-read can happen.\n\nApplications calling CMS_decrypt() or CMS_decrypt_set1_password()\n(equivalently openssl cms -decrypt -pwri_password ...) on untrusted CMS\ndata are vulnerable to this issue. No password knowledge is required: the\nover-read happens during the unwrap attempt before any authentication\nsucceeds.\n\nThe over-read is limited to a few bytes and is not written to output, so\nthere is no information disclosure. Triggering a crash requires the\nallocation to border unmapped memory, which is unlikely with the normal\nallocator.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.(CVE-2026-9076)","status":"published","published":"2026-06-24T11:11:41Z","modified":"2026-08-18T01:21:11.33682574Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:52:46.449097Z"},{"id":"OESA-2026-2773","title":"edk2 security update","description":"EDK II is a modern, feature-rich, cross-platform firmware development environment for the UEFI and PI specifications.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nEDK2 contains a vulnerability in BIOS where an attacker may cause “Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor” by local access. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability will lead to \n\npossible information disclosure or escalation of privilege\n\n and impact Confidentiality.(CVE-2024-38798)\n\nEDK2 contains a vulnerability in BIOS where a user may cause an Integer Overflow or Wraparound by network means. A successful exploitation of this vulnerability may lead to denial of service.(CVE-2025-2295)\n\nIssue summary: Parsing a crafted DER-encoded ASN.1 structure with a primitive\nelement whose content exceeds 2 gigabytes in length may cause a heap buffer\nover-read on 64-bit Unix and Unix-like platforms.\n\nImpact summary: The heap buffer over-read may crash the application (Denial of\nService) or to load into the decoded ASN.1 object contents of memory beyond the\nend of the input buffer.  More typically such ASN.1 elements would instead be\ntruncated.\n\nAn integer truncation in OpenSSL\u0026apos;s ASN.1 decoder causes the content length of\nan ASN.1 primitive element to be mishandled when it exceeds 2 gigabytes. In the\nworst case the truncated length is treated as a request to scan the binary\ncontent for a terminating zero byte, possibly causing OpenSSL to read either\nless than or beyond the end of the allocated buffer.\n\nApplications that pass attacker-supplied data to d2i_X509(), d2i_PKCS7(), or\nany other d2i_* decoding function are affected. OpenSSL\u0026apos;s own command-line\ntools are not vulnerable, as data read through the BIO layer is checked before\nit reaches the affected code. The issue only affects 64-bit Unix and Unix-like\nplatforms; 32-bit platforms and 64-bit Windows are not affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue,\nas the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-34180)\n\nIssue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim\u0026apos;s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.(CVE-2026-34182)\n\nIssue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination\nbuffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap\nbuffer overflow.\n\nImpact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly\nattacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour.\n\nIn ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination\nsize for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift\nof the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and\nUNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts\nfor UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches\naround 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30\ncharacters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and\nthe subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the\none-byte allocation.\n\nX.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(),\nwhose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID\nsize limits cap the input length; no network protocol or\ncertificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow.\nTriggering the bug requires an application that calls\nASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers\na custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with\nattacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more.\nFor these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by\nthis issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module\nboundary.(CVE-2026-7383)\n\nIssue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap)\nprocesses attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK\ncipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key().\n\nImpact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to\nDenial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory\npage boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information\ndisclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker.\n\nThe key unwrapping function performs a check-byte test as specified in the\nRFC that reads 7 bytes from a heap allocation that is based on the wrapped\nkey length from the message. There is a minimum length check based on the\nblock length of the wrapping cipher. However the cipher is selected from\nan OID carried in the attacker\u0026apos;s PWRI keyEncryptionAlgorithm with no\nrequirement that the cipher be a block cipher. When an attacker selects\na stream-mode cipher the guard will be ineffective and the allocated buffer\ncontaining the unwrapped key can be too small to fit the check-bytes\nspecified in the RFC and a buffer over-read can happen.\n\nApplications calling CMS_decrypt() or CMS_decrypt_set1_password()\n(equivalently openssl cms -decrypt -pwri_password ...) on untrusted CMS\ndata are vulnerable to this issue. No password knowledge is required: the\nover-read happens during the unwrap attempt before any authentication\nsucceeds.\n\nThe over-read is limited to a few bytes and is not written to output, so\nthere is no information disclosure. Triggering a crash requires the\nallocation to border unmapped memory, which is unlikely with the normal\nallocator.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.(CVE-2026-9076)","status":"published","published":"2026-06-24T11:11:41Z","modified":"2026-08-18T01:21:11.670241181Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:52:46.449097Z"},{"id":"OESA-2026-2781","title":"openssl security update","description":"OpenSSL is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIssue summary: Parsing a crafted DER-encoded ASN.1 structure with a primitive\nelement whose content exceeds 2 gigabytes in length may cause a heap buffer\nover-read on 64-bit Unix and Unix-like platforms.\n\nImpact summary: The heap buffer over-read may crash the application (Denial of\nService) or to load into the decoded ASN.1 object contents of memory beyond the\nend of the input buffer.  More typically such ASN.1 elements would instead be\ntruncated.\n\nAn integer truncation in OpenSSL\u0026apos;s ASN.1 decoder causes the content length of\nan ASN.1 primitive element to be mishandled when it exceeds 2 gigabytes. In the\nworst case the truncated length is treated as a request to scan the binary\ncontent for a terminating zero byte, possibly causing OpenSSL to read either\nless than or beyond the end of the allocated buffer.\n\nApplications that pass attacker-supplied data to d2i_X509(), d2i_PKCS7(), or\nany other d2i_* decoding function are affected. OpenSSL\u0026apos;s own command-line\ntools are not vulnerable, as data read through the BIO layer is checked before\nit reaches the affected code. The issue only affects 64-bit Unix and Unix-like\nplatforms; 32-bit platforms and 64-bit Windows are not affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue,\nas the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-34180)\n\nIssue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim\u0026apos;s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.(CVE-2026-34182)\n\nIssue summary: A specially crafted password-encrypted CMS message\ncan trigger a NULL pointer dereference during CMS decryption.\n\nImpact summary: This NULL pointer dereference leads to an application crash\nand a Denial of Service.\n\nThe CMS PasswordRecipientInfo.keyDerivationAlgorithm field is defined as\nOPTIONAL in the ASN.1 specification and may therefore be absent in specially\ncrafted inputs. During the password-based CMS decryption the OpenSSL\nCMS implementation dereferences this field without first checking whether it\nwas present.\n\nAn attacker who supplies such a CMS message to an application performing\npassword-based CMS decryption can trigger an application crash, leading to\na Denial of Service.\n\nApplications that process password-encrypted CMS messages may be affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-42766)\n\nIssue summary: An attacker-controlled CMP (Certificate Management Protocol)\nserver could trigger a NULL pointer dereference in a CMP client application.\n\nImpact summary: A NULL pointer dereference causes a crash of the\napplication and a Denial of Service.\n\nAn attacker controlling a CMP server (or acting as a man-in-the-middle) could\ncraft a CMP response containing a CRMF (Certificate Request Message Format)\nCertRepMessage with an EncryptedValue structure where the symmAlg field\nhas an algorithm OID but no parameters field. When the OpenSSL CMP client\nprocesses this response, the NULL dereference occurs, causing a crash of\nthe CMP client.\n\nApplications that process untrusted CMP/CRMF messages may be affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-42767)\n\nIssue summary: When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42)\npeer key, the peer key is not properly checked for the subgroup membership.\n\nImpact summary: A malicious peer which presents an X9.42 key carrying the\nvictim\u0026apos;s p and g parameters, a forged q = r (a small prime factor of the\ncofactor (p−1)/q_local), and a public value Y of order r can recover the\nvictim\u0026apos;s private key after a small number of key exchange attempts.\n\nWhen EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the\nsubgroup membership check Y^q ≡ 1 (mod p) is performed using the peer\u0026apos;s\nown q parameter, not the local key\u0026apos;s q. The peer\u0026apos;s domain parameters are\nthen matched against the domain parameters of the private key, but the value\nof q is not compared.\n\nA malicious peer who presents an X9.42 key carrying the victim\u0026apos;s p, g,\na forged q = r (a small prime factor of the cofactor), and a public\nvalue Y of order r passes all checks. The shared secret then takes only\nr distinct values, leaking priv mod r. Repeating for each small-prime\nfactor of the cofactor and combining via CRT recovers the full private\nkey (Lim–Lee / small-subgroup-confinement attack).\n\nThe realistic attack surface is narrow: principally CMP deployments with\nlong-lived RA/CA DHX keys and bespoke enterprise or government applications\nusing X9.42 DHX static keys with interactive protocols and therefore this\nissue was assigned Low severity.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are affected by this\nissue.(CVE-2026-42770)\n\nIssue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the\npublic EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied\ninitialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded.\n\nImpact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the\nsame effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller,\nresulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality.  If the\nsame code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag\ndepends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or\nciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a\nsingle captured message.\n\nOpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming\ninterface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level\none-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends\nagainst use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and\nEVP_CipherFinal_ex().  The OCB provider\u0026apos;s streaming handler flushes\nthe application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing\ndata; the one-shot handler did not.  Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an\nAES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset\nstate left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller\u0026apos;s IV.\n\nIf EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the\nauthentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and\nclears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the\nplaintext.  The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and\nverifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV)\npair.\n\nThe OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a\nTLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case.\nApplications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD\nAPI (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected.  Only\napplications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher()\none-shot API are vulnerable.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by\nthis issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-45445)\n\nIssue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV\n(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated\nData) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.\n\nImpact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD\nto the victim\u0026apos;s application using these ciphers.\n\nAES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD\nmodes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated\nbut not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte\ntag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only\nif the tag is verified succesfully.\n\nIn OpenSSL\u0026apos;s provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is\ncomputed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.\nIf the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without\ninvocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received\nciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its\nall-zeros value.\n\nWhen AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty\nciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not\nknow, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it\u0026apos;s\nnecessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without\nresetting the key.\n\nAES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since\nOpenSSL 3.2.\n\nNo protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support\neither AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must\nimplement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the\nciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is\noutside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-45446)\n\nIssue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could\ntrigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification.\n\nImpact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap\ncorruption, or potentially remote code execution.\n\nWhen processing a PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message, if the SignedData\ndigestAlgorithms field is present as an empty ASN.1 SET, OpenSSL may\nincorrectly free a caller-owned BIO during PKCS7_verify(). A subsequent\nuse of the BIO by the calling application results in a use-after-free\ncondition.\n\nIn the common case this occurs when the application later calls\nBIO_free() on the BIO originally passed to PKCS7_verify(). Depending\non allocator behavior and application-specific BIO usage patterns, this\nmay result in a crash or other memory corruption. In some application\ncontexts this may potentially be exploitable for remote code execution.\n\nApplications that process PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed messages using OpenSSL\nPKCS#7 APIs may be affected. Applications using the CMS APIs for this\nprocessing are not affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-45447)\n\nIssue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination\nbuffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap\nbuffer overflow.\n\nImpact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly\nattacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour.\n\nIn ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination\nsize for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift\nof the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and\nUNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts\nfor UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches\naround 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30\ncharacters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and\nthe subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the\none-byte allocation.\n\nX.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(),\nwhose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID\nsize limits cap the input length; no network protocol or\ncertificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow.\nTriggering the bug requires an application that calls\nASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers\na custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with\nattacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more.\nFor these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by\nthis issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module\nboundary.(CVE-2026-7383)\n\nIssue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap)\nprocesses attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK\ncipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key().\n\nImpact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to\nDenial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory\npage boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information\ndisclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker.\n\nThe key unwrapping function performs a check-byte test as specified in the\nRFC that reads 7 bytes from a heap allocation that is based on the wrapped\nkey length from the message. There is a minimum length check based on the\nblock length of the wrapping cipher. However the cipher is selected from\nan OID carried in the attacker\u0026apos;s PWRI keyEncryptionAlgorithm with no\nrequirement that the cipher be a block cipher. When an attacker selects\na stream-mode cipher the guard will be ineffective and the allocated buffer\ncontaining the unwrapped key can be too small to fit the check-bytes\nspecified in the RFC and a buffer over-read can happen.\n\nApplications calling CMS_decrypt() or CMS_decrypt_set1_password()\n(equivalently openssl cms -decrypt -pwri_password ...) on untrusted CMS\ndata are vulnerable to this issue. No password knowledge is required: the\nover-read happens during the unwrap attempt before any authentication\nsucceeds.\n\nThe over-read is limited to a few bytes and is not written to output, so\nthere is no information disclosure. Triggering a crash requires the\nallocation to border unmapped memory, which is unlikely with the normal\nallocator.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.(CVE-2026-9076)","status":"published","published":"2026-06-24T11:11:42Z","modified":"2026-08-18T01:21:12.564973865Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:52:46.449097Z"},{"id":"OESA-2026-2782","title":"openssl security update","description":"OpenSSL is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIssue summary: Parsing a crafted DER-encoded ASN.1 structure with a primitive\nelement whose content exceeds 2 gigabytes in length may cause a heap buffer\nover-read on 64-bit Unix and Unix-like platforms.\n\nImpact summary: The heap buffer over-read may crash the application (Denial of\nService) or to load into the decoded ASN.1 object contents of memory beyond the\nend of the input buffer.  More typically such ASN.1 elements would instead be\ntruncated.\n\nAn integer truncation in OpenSSL\u0026apos;s ASN.1 decoder causes the content length of\nan ASN.1 primitive element to be mishandled when it exceeds 2 gigabytes. In the\nworst case the truncated length is treated as a request to scan the binary\ncontent for a terminating zero byte, possibly causing OpenSSL to read either\nless than or beyond the end of the allocated buffer.\n\nApplications that pass attacker-supplied data to d2i_X509(), d2i_PKCS7(), or\nany other d2i_* decoding function are affected. OpenSSL\u0026apos;s own command-line\ntools are not vulnerable, as data read through the BIO layer is checked before\nit reaches the affected code. The issue only affects 64-bit Unix and Unix-like\nplatforms; 32-bit platforms and 64-bit Windows are not affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue,\nas the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-34180)\n\nIssue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim\u0026apos;s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.(CVE-2026-34182)\n\nIssue summary: A specially crafted password-encrypted CMS message\ncan trigger a NULL pointer dereference during CMS decryption.\n\nImpact summary: This NULL pointer dereference leads to an application crash\nand a Denial of Service.\n\nThe CMS PasswordRecipientInfo.keyDerivationAlgorithm field is defined as\nOPTIONAL in the ASN.1 specification and may therefore be absent in specially\ncrafted inputs. During the password-based CMS decryption the OpenSSL\nCMS implementation dereferences this field without first checking whether it\nwas present.\n\nAn attacker who supplies such a CMS message to an application performing\npassword-based CMS decryption can trigger an application crash, leading to\na Denial of Service.\n\nApplications that process password-encrypted CMS messages may be affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-42766)\n\nIssue summary: An attacker-controlled CMP (Certificate Management Protocol)\nserver could trigger a NULL pointer dereference in a CMP client application.\n\nImpact summary: A NULL pointer dereference causes a crash of the\napplication and a Denial of Service.\n\nAn attacker controlling a CMP server (or acting as a man-in-the-middle) could\ncraft a CMP response containing a CRMF (Certificate Request Message Format)\nCertRepMessage with an EncryptedValue structure where the symmAlg field\nhas an algorithm OID but no parameters field. When the OpenSSL CMP client\nprocesses this response, the NULL dereference occurs, causing a crash of\nthe CMP client.\n\nApplications that process untrusted CMP/CRMF messages may be affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-42767)\n\nIssue summary: When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42)\npeer key, the peer key is not properly checked for the subgroup membership.\n\nImpact summary: A malicious peer which presents an X9.42 key carrying the\nvictim\u0026apos;s p and g parameters, a forged q = r (a small prime factor of the\ncofactor (p−1)/q_local), and a public value Y of order r can recover the\nvictim\u0026apos;s private key after a small number of key exchange attempts.\n\nWhen EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the\nsubgroup membership check Y^q ≡ 1 (mod p) is performed using the peer\u0026apos;s\nown q parameter, not the local key\u0026apos;s q. The peer\u0026apos;s domain parameters are\nthen matched against the domain parameters of the private key, but the value\nof q is not compared.\n\nA malicious peer who presents an X9.42 key carrying the victim\u0026apos;s p, g,\na forged q = r (a small prime factor of the cofactor), and a public\nvalue Y of order r passes all checks. The shared secret then takes only\nr distinct values, leaking priv mod r. Repeating for each small-prime\nfactor of the cofactor and combining via CRT recovers the full private\nkey (Lim–Lee / small-subgroup-confinement attack).\n\nThe realistic attack surface is narrow: principally CMP deployments with\nlong-lived RA/CA DHX keys and bespoke enterprise or government applications\nusing X9.42 DHX static keys with interactive protocols and therefore this\nissue was assigned Low severity.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are affected by this\nissue.(CVE-2026-42770)\n\nIssue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV\n(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated\nData) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.\n\nImpact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD\nto the victim\u0026apos;s application using these ciphers.\n\nAES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD\nmodes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated\nbut not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte\ntag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only\nif the tag is verified succesfully.\n\nIn OpenSSL\u0026apos;s provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is\ncomputed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.\nIf the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without\ninvocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received\nciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its\nall-zeros value.\n\nWhen AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty\nciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not\nknow, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it\u0026apos;s\nnecessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without\nresetting the key.\n\nAES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since\nOpenSSL 3.2.\n\nNo protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support\neither AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must\nimplement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the\nciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is\noutside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-45446)\n\nIssue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could\ntrigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification.\n\nImpact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap\ncorruption, or potentially remote code execution.\n\nWhen processing a PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message, if the SignedData\ndigestAlgorithms field is present as an empty ASN.1 SET, OpenSSL may\nincorrectly free a caller-owned BIO during PKCS7_verify(). A subsequent\nuse of the BIO by the calling application results in a use-after-free\ncondition.\n\nIn the common case this occurs when the application later calls\nBIO_free() on the BIO originally passed to PKCS7_verify(). Depending\non allocator behavior and application-specific BIO usage patterns, this\nmay result in a crash or other memory corruption. In some application\ncontexts this may potentially be exploitable for remote code execution.\n\nApplications that process PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed messages using OpenSSL\nPKCS#7 APIs may be affected. Applications using the CMS APIs for this\nprocessing are not affected.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-45447)\n\nIssue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination\nbuffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap\nbuffer overflow.\n\nImpact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly\nattacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour.\n\nIn ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination\nsize for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift\nof the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and\nUNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts\nfor UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches\naround 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30\ncharacters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and\nthe subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the\none-byte allocation.\n\nX.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(),\nwhose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID\nsize limits cap the input length; no network protocol or\ncertificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow.\nTriggering the bug requires an application that calls\nASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers\na custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with\nattacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more.\nFor these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by\nthis issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module\nboundary.(CVE-2026-7383)\n\nIssue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap)\nprocesses attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK\ncipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key().\n\nImpact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to\nDenial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory\npage boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information\ndisclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker.\n\nThe key unwrapping function performs a check-byte test as specified in the\nRFC that reads 7 bytes from a heap allocation that is based on the wrapped\nkey length from the message. There is a minimum length check based on the\nblock length of the wrapping cipher. However the cipher is selected from\nan OID carried in the attacker\u0026apos;s PWRI keyEncryptionAlgorithm with no\nrequirement that the cipher be a block cipher. When an attacker selects\na stream-mode cipher the guard will be ineffective and the allocated buffer\ncontaining the unwrapped key can be too small to fit the check-bytes\nspecified in the RFC and a buffer over-read can happen.\n\nApplications calling CMS_decrypt() or CMS_decrypt_set1_password()\n(equivalently openssl cms -decrypt -pwri_password ...) on untrusted CMS\ndata are vulnerable to this issue. No password knowledge is required: the\nover-read happens during the unwrap attempt before any authentication\nsucceeds.\n\nThe over-read is limited to a few bytes and is not written to output, so\nthere is no information disclosure. Triggering a crash requires the\nallocation to border unmapped memory, which is unlikely with the normal\nallocator.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.(CVE-2026-9076)","status":"published","published":"2026-06-24T11:11:42Z","modified":"2026-08-18T01:21:12.294107083Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:52:46.449097Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:25237","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: openssl security update","status":"published","published":"2026-06-12T10:07:07Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:06:34Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:19.449341Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:25239","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: openssl security update","status":"published","published":"2026-06-12T10:07:08Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:06:35Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:19.449341Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:42825","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update","status":"published","published":"2026-08-29T10:05:47Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:09:07Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:20.491441Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:55543","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update","status":"published","published":"2026-08-29T10:06:17Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:11:20Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:21.457353Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:59635","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update","status":"published","published":"2026-08-27T10:15:54Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:12:09Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:21.91255Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:59641","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update","status":"published","published":"2026-08-27T10:15:54Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:12:09Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:21.91255Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:62562","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs Security Update","status":"published","published":"2026-09-03T10:14:27Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:12:39Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:21.91255Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:62563","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs Security Update","status":"published","published":"2026-09-03T10:14:28Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:12:39Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:21.91255Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:62790","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update","status":"published","published":"2026-09-22T10:17:08Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:12:46Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:21.91255Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:67551","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update","status":"published","published":"2026-09-22T10:18:42Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:13:58Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:22.406388Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:71542","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: openssl security update","status":"published","published":"2026-09-25T10:15:28Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:14:55Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:22.928316Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:83617","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: openssl security update","status":"published","published":"2026-10-16T10:27:34Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:17:18Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:23.547034Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:84572","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: openssl security update","status":"published","published":"2026-10-19T10:07:55Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:17:29Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:23.547034Z"},{"id":"RHSA-2026:84573","title":"Red Hat Security Advisory: openssl security update","status":"published","published":"2026-10-20T10:17:30Z","modified":"2026-10-20T10:32:22.469975676Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:23.547034Z"},{"id":"RLSA-2026:25237","title":"Important: openssl security update","description":"OpenSSL is a toolkit that implements the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocols, as well as a full-strength general-purpose cryptography library.\n\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\n* openssl: OpenSSL: Heap buffer overflow due to signed integer overflow in Unicode output sizing (CVE-2026-7383)\n\n* openssl: OpenSSL: Denial of Service due to heap out-of-bounds read in CMS password-based decryption (CVE-2026-9076)\n\n* openssl: OpenSSL: Heap buffer over-read in ASN.1 decoding can lead to denial of service or information disclosure. (CVE-2026-34180)\n\n* openssl: PKCS#12 Files with PBMAC1 Are Accepted with Short HMAC Keys (CVE-2026-34181)\n\n* openssl: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (CVE-2026-34182)\n\n* openssl: Unbounded Memory Growth in the QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE Handler (CVE-2026-34183)\n\n* openssl: NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling (CVE-2026-42764)\n\n* openssl: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (CVE-2026-42766)\n\n* openssl: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (CVE-2026-42767)\n\n* openssl: Multi-RecipientInfo Bleichenbacher Oracle in CMS_decrypt() and PKCS7_decrypt() (CVE-2026-42768)\n\n* openssl: Trust-Anchor Substitution via cert/issuer Typo in CMP rootCaKeyUpdate (CVE-2026-42769)\n\n* openssl: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (CVE-2026-42770)\n\n* openssl: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (CVE-2026-45445)\n\n* openssl: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (CVE-2026-45446)\n\n* openssl: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (CVE-2026-45447)\n\nFor more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-13T00:05:06.020189Z","modified":"2026-06-13T00:30:05.753476822Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:25.804165Z"},{"id":"RLSA-2026:25239","title":"Important: openssl security update","description":"OpenSSL is a toolkit that implements the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocols, as well as a full-strength general-purpose cryptography library.\n\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\n* openssl: OpenSSL: Heap buffer overflow due to signed integer overflow in Unicode output sizing (CVE-2026-7383)\n\n* openssl: OpenSSL: Denial of Service due to heap out-of-bounds read in CMS password-based decryption (CVE-2026-9076)\n\n* openssl: OpenSSL: Heap buffer over-read in ASN.1 decoding can lead to denial of service or information disclosure. (CVE-2026-34180)\n\n* openssl: PKCS#12 Files with PBMAC1 Are Accepted with Short HMAC Keys (CVE-2026-34181)\n\n* openssl: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (CVE-2026-34182)\n\n* openssl: Unbounded Memory Growth in the QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE Handler (CVE-2026-34183)\n\n* openssl: NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling (CVE-2026-42764)\n\n* openssl: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (CVE-2026-42766)\n\n* openssl: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (CVE-2026-42767)\n\n* openssl: Multi-RecipientInfo Bleichenbacher Oracle in CMS_decrypt() and PKCS7_decrypt() (CVE-2026-42768)\n\n* openssl: Trust-Anchor Substitution via cert/issuer Typo in CMP rootCaKeyUpdate (CVE-2026-42769)\n\n* openssl: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (CVE-2026-42770)\n\n* openssl: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (CVE-2026-45445)\n\n* openssl: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (CVE-2026-45446)\n\n* openssl: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (CVE-2026-45447)\n\nFor more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-13T00:03:17.085789Z","modified":"2026-06-13T00:30:05.7593994Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:25.804165Z"},{"id":"UBUNTU-CVE-2026-34182","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of AuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises. Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity validation for a given message. In one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing AuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL erroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the message. An on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData addressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left byte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK (the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB (Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an attacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the real CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success. If the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator showing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the attacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the CEK used for the chosen recipient of the message. In another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD cipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long, allowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity bypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content. The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T00:00:00Z","modified":"2026-10-17T13:00:01.681632824Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":9.1,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"critical"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:56:16.036833Z"},{"id":"ALSA-2026:25237","title":"Important: openssl security update","description":"OpenSSL is a toolkit that implements the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocols, as well as a full-strength general-purpose cryptography library.  \n\nSecurity Fix(es):  \n\n  * openssl: OpenSSL: Heap buffer overflow due to signed integer overflow in Unicode output sizing (CVE-2026-7383)\n  * openssl: OpenSSL: Denial of Service due to heap out-of-bounds read in CMS password-based decryption (CVE-2026-9076)\n  * openssl: OpenSSL: Heap buffer over-read in ASN.1 decoding can lead to denial of service or information disclosure. (CVE-2026-34180)\n  * openssl: PKCS#12 Files with PBMAC1 Are Accepted with Short HMAC Keys (CVE-2026-34181)\n  * openssl: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (CVE-2026-34182)\n  * openssl: Unbounded Memory Growth in the QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE Handler (CVE-2026-34183)\n  * openssl: NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling (CVE-2026-42764)\n  * openssl: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (CVE-2026-42766)\n  * openssl: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (CVE-2026-42767)\n  * openssl: Multi-RecipientInfo Bleichenbacher Oracle in CMS_decrypt() and PKCS7_decrypt() (CVE-2026-42768)\n  * openssl: Trust-Anchor Substitution via cert/issuer Typo in CMP rootCaKeyUpdate (CVE-2026-42769)\n  * openssl: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (CVE-2026-42770)\n  * openssl: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (CVE-2026-45445)\n  * openssl: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (CVE-2026-45446)\n  * openssl: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (CVE-2026-45447)\n\n\nFor more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.\n","status":"published","published":"2026-06-11T00:00:00Z","modified":"2026-10-29T11:30:19.406512767Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:27:54.283654Z"},{"id":"ALSA-2026:25239","title":"Important: openssl security update","description":"OpenSSL is a toolkit that implements the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocols, as well as a full-strength general-purpose cryptography library.  \n\nSecurity Fix(es):  \n\n  * openssl: OpenSSL: Heap buffer overflow due to signed integer overflow in Unicode output sizing (CVE-2026-7383)\n  * openssl: OpenSSL: Denial of Service due to heap out-of-bounds read in CMS password-based decryption (CVE-2026-9076)\n  * openssl: OpenSSL: Heap buffer over-read in ASN.1 decoding can lead to denial of service or information disclosure. (CVE-2026-34180)\n  * openssl: PKCS#12 Files with PBMAC1 Are Accepted with Short HMAC Keys (CVE-2026-34181)\n  * openssl: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (CVE-2026-34182)\n  * openssl: Unbounded Memory Growth in the QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE Handler (CVE-2026-34183)\n  * openssl: NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling (CVE-2026-42764)\n  * openssl: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (CVE-2026-42766)\n  * openssl: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (CVE-2026-42767)\n  * openssl: Multi-RecipientInfo Bleichenbacher Oracle in CMS_decrypt() and PKCS7_decrypt() (CVE-2026-42768)\n  * openssl: Trust-Anchor Substitution via cert/issuer Typo in CMP rootCaKeyUpdate (CVE-2026-42769)\n  * openssl: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (CVE-2026-42770)\n  * openssl: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (CVE-2026-45445)\n  * openssl: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (CVE-2026-45446)\n  * openssl: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (CVE-2026-45447)\n\n\nFor more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.\n","status":"published","published":"2026-06-11T00:00:00Z","modified":"2026-10-29T11:32:34.006971149Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:27:54.283654Z"},{"id":"AZL-89802","title":"CVE-2026-34182 affecting package openssl-fips-provider 3.1.2-2","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T17:17:04Z","modified":"2026-11-05T05:36:30Z","updated_at":"2026-11-05T16:41:25.633663Z"},{"id":"AZL-89861","title":"CVE-2026-34182 affecting package edk2 for versions less than 20240524git3e722403cd16-18","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T17:17:04Z","modified":"2026-11-05T05:40:51Z","updated_at":"2026-11-05T16:41:25.633663Z"},{"id":"AZL-89931","title":"CVE-2026-34182 affecting package openssl for versions less than 3.3.7-3","description":"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-09T17:17:04Z","modified":"2026-11-05T05:40:51Z","updated_at":"2026-11-05T16:41:25.633663Z"},{"id":"MGASA-2026-0253","title":"Updated openssl packages fix security vulnerabilities","description":"The updated packages fix security vulnerabilities:\nPossible Heap Buffer Overflow in ASN.1 Multibyte String Conversion.\n(CVE-2026-7383)\nOut-of-Bounds Read in CMS Password-Based Decryption. (CVE-2026-9076)\nHeap Buffer Over-read in ASN.1 Content Parsing. (CVE-2026-34180)\nPKCS#12 Files with PBMAC1 Are Accepted with Short HMAC Keys.\n(CVE-2026-34181)\nCMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages.\n(CVE-2026-34182)\nUnbounded Memory Growth in the QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE Handler.\n(CVE-2026-34183)\nNULL Pointer Dereference in QUIC Server Initial Packet Handling.\n(CVE-2026-42764)\nPossible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption.\n(CVE-2026-42766)\nNULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption.\n(CVE-2026-42767)\nMulti-RecipientInfo Bleichenbacher Oracle in CMS_decrypt() and\nPKCS7_decrypt(). (CVE-2026-42768)\nTrust-Anchor Substitution via cert/issuer Typo in CMP rootCaKeyUpdate.\n(CVE-2026-42769)\nFFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q. (CVE-2026-42770)\nAES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path. (CVE-2026-45445)\nIncorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV\nmodes. (CVE-2026-45446)\nHeap Use-After-Free in the PKCS7_verify(). (CVE-2026-45447)\n","status":"published","published":"2026-07-15T17:33:12Z","modified":"2026-07-15T17:49:59.909323566Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:49:43.795591Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:11023-1","title":"libopenssl-3-devel-3.5.3-6.1 on GA media","description":"These are all security issues fixed in the libopenssl-3-devel-3.5.3-6.1 package on the GA media of openSUSE Tumbleweed.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-13T00:00:00Z","modified":"2026-06-14T14:00:07.553225075Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:38.95195Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:21005-1","title":"Security update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues\n\n- CVE-2026-2673: TLS 1.3 servers may choose unexpected key agreement group (bsc#1259652).\n- CVE-2026-7383: Possible Heap Buffer Overflow in ASN.1 Multibyte String Conversion (bsc#1266340).\n- CVE-2026-9076: Out-of-Bounds Read in CMS Password-Based Decryption (bsc#1266341).\n- CVE-2026-34180: Heap Buffer Over-read in ASN.1 Content Parsing (bsc#1266342).\n- CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344).\n- CVE-2026-34183: Unbounded Memory Growth in the QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE Handler (bsc#1266345).\n- CVE-2026-42764: NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling (bsc#1266347).\n- CVE-2026-42766: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (bsc#1266349).\n- CVE-2026-42767: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (bsc#1266350).\n- CVE-2026-42768: Multi-RecipientInfo Bleichenbacher Oracle in CMS_decrypt() and PKCS7_decrypt() (bsc#1266351).\n- CVE-2026-42769: Trust-Anchor Substitution via cert/issuer Typo in CMP rootCaKeyUpdate (bsc#1266352).\n- CVE-2026-42770: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (bsc#1266353).\n- CVE-2026-45445: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (bsc#1266355).\n- CVE-2026-45446: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (bsc#1266356).\n- CVE-2026-45447: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (bsc#1266357).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-06-22T12:26:17Z","modified":"2026-06-30T18:24:35.407904348Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:41.885092Z"},{"id":"ROOT-OS-ALPINE-317-CVE-2026-34182","title":"CVE-2026-34182 in openssl - Patched by Root","description":"Root has patched CVE-2026-34182 in the openssl package for Root:Alpine:3.17. Multiple fixed versions available.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-15T06:28:37Z","modified":"2026-10-15T07:15:06.219072668Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:28.259095Z"},{"id":"SUSE-RU-2026:5018-1","title":"Recommended update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues:\n\n- Allow to bypass the strict tag initialization and length\n  enforcement added in the fix for CVE-2026-34182 when the env\n  variable OPENSSL_ALLOW_CMS_UNAUTHENTICATED_AEAD is defined and\n  set to a non-zero value. (bsc#1281325)\n","status":"published","published":"2026-11-02T09:53:11Z","modified":"2026-11-03T17:23:11.790527986Z","updated_at":"2026-11-03T18:00:34.078068Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:22100-1","title":"Security update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues\n\n- CVE-2026-7383: Possible Heap Buffer Overflow in ASN.1 Multibyte String Conversion (bsc#1266340).\n- CVE-2026-9076: Out-of-Bounds Read in CMS Password-Based Decryption (bsc#1266341).\n- CVE-2026-34180: Heap Buffer Over-read in ASN.1 Content Parsing (bsc#1266342).\n- CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344).\n- CVE-2026-42766: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (bsc#1266349).\n- CVE-2026-42770: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (bsc#1266353).\n- CVE-2026-45445: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (bsc#1266355).\n- CVE-2026-45446: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (bsc#1266356).\n- CVE-2026-45447: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (bsc#1266357).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-06-11T10:02:22Z","modified":"2026-06-17T18:24:07.461556563Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:02.654057Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:22132-1","title":"Security update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues\n\n- CVE-2024-41996: DHEATATTACK: Validating the order of the public keys in the Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol,\n  when an approved safe prime is used, allows remote attackers to trigger expensive server-side DHE (bsc#1230698).\n- CVE-2026-7383: Possible Heap Buffer Overflow in ASN.1 Multibyte String Conversion (bsc#1266340).\n- CVE-2026-9076: Out-of-Bounds Read in CMS Password-Based Decryption (bsc#1266341).\n- CVE-2026-28390: NULL pointer dereference during processing of a crafted CMS EnvelopedData message with\n  KeyTransportRecipientInfo (bsc#1261678).\n- CVE-2026-34180: Heap Buffer Over-read in ASN.1 Content Parsing (bsc#1266342).\n- CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344).\n- CVE-2026-42766: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (bsc#1266349).\n- CVE-2026-42770: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (bsc#1266353).\n- CVE-2026-45445: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (bsc#1266355).\n- CVE-2026-45446: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (bsc#1266356).\n- CVE-2026-45447: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (bsc#1266357).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-06-11T12:42:44Z","modified":"2026-06-18T18:24:35.630631263Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:02.654057Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:22251-1","title":"Security update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues\n\n- CVE-2026-2673: TLS 1.3 servers may choose unexpected key agreement group (bsc#1259652).\n- CVE-2026-7383: Possible Heap Buffer Overflow in ASN.1 Multibyte String Conversion (bsc#1266340).\n- CVE-2026-9076: Out-of-Bounds Read in CMS Password-Based Decryption (bsc#1266341).\n- CVE-2026-34180: Heap Buffer Over-read in ASN.1 Content Parsing (bsc#1266342).\n- CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344).\n- CVE-2026-34183: Unbounded Memory Growth in the QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE Handler (bsc#1266345).\n- CVE-2026-42764: NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling (bsc#1266347).\n- CVE-2026-42766: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (bsc#1266349).\n- CVE-2026-42767: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (bsc#1266350).\n- CVE-2026-42768: Multi-RecipientInfo Bleichenbacher Oracle in CMS_decrypt() and PKCS7_decrypt() (bsc#1266351).\n- CVE-2026-42769: Trust-Anchor Substitution via cert/issuer Typo in CMP rootCaKeyUpdate (bsc#1266352).\n- CVE-2026-42770: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (bsc#1266353).\n- CVE-2026-45445: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (bsc#1266355).\n- CVE-2026-45446: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (bsc#1266356).\n- CVE-2026-45447: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (bsc#1266357).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-06-22T12:23:46Z","modified":"2026-06-30T18:24:26.161789581Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:02.654057Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:22315-1","title":"Security update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues\n\n- CVE-2026-2673: TLS 1.3 servers may choose unexpected key agreement group (bsc#1259652).\n- CVE-2026-7383: Possible Heap Buffer Overflow in ASN.1 Multibyte String Conversion (bsc#1266340).\n- CVE-2026-9076: Out-of-Bounds Read in CMS Password-Based Decryption (bsc#1266341).\n- CVE-2026-34180: Heap Buffer Over-read in ASN.1 Content Parsing (bsc#1266342).\n- CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344).\n- CVE-2026-34183: Unbounded Memory Growth in the QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE Handler (bsc#1266345).\n- CVE-2026-42764: NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling (bsc#1266347).\n- CVE-2026-42766: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (bsc#1266349).\n- CVE-2026-42767: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (bsc#1266350).\n- CVE-2026-42768: Multi-RecipientInfo Bleichenbacher Oracle in CMS_decrypt() and PKCS7_decrypt() (bsc#1266351).\n- CVE-2026-42769: Trust-Anchor Substitution via cert/issuer Typo in CMP rootCaKeyUpdate (bsc#1266352).\n- CVE-2026-42770: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (bsc#1266353).\n- CVE-2026-45445: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (bsc#1266355).\n- CVE-2026-45446: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (bsc#1266356).\n- CVE-2026-45447: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (bsc#1266357).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-06-22T12:23:46Z","modified":"2026-07-02T18:24:09.732592143Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:03.080707Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:2393-1","title":"Security update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues\n\n- CVE-2026-7383: Possible Heap Buffer Overflow in ASN.1 Multibyte String Conversion (bsc#1266340).\n- CVE-2026-9076: Out-of-Bounds Read in CMS Password-Based Decryption (bsc#1266341).\n- CVE-2026-34180: Heap Buffer Over-read in ASN.1 Content Parsing (bsc#1266342).\n- CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344).\n- CVE-2026-42766: Possible NULL Dereference in Password-Based CMS Decryption (bsc#1266349).\n- CVE-2026-42770: FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q (bsc#1266353).\n- CVE-2026-45445: AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path (bsc#1266355).\n- CVE-2026-45446: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes (bsc#1266356).\n- CVE-2026-45447: Heap Use-After-Free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() (bsc#1266357).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-06-15T08:06:06Z","modified":"2026-06-16T10:30:06.896490143Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:03.991985Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:3005-1","title":"Security update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues\n\n- CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344).\n- CVE-2026-42767: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (bsc#1266350).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-07-15T07:26:31Z","modified":"2026-07-16T10:00:05.335259415Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:04.987808Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:3094-1","title":"Security update for openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl-3 fixes the following issues\n\n- CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344).\n- CVE-2026-42767: NULL Pointer Dereference in CRMF EncryptedValue Decryption (bsc#1266350).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-07-17T09:54:04Z","modified":"2026-07-18T08:45:08.534747568Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:04.987808Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:3835-1","title":"Security update for openssl, openssl-3","description":"This update for openssl, openssl-3 fixes the following issues:\n\nOpenSSL is updated to 3.5.0 in SLE-15-SP7: (jsc#PED-16072)\n\n* Enables Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) TLS support\n\nSecurity issues fixed:\n\n* CVE-2026-42764: NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling (bsc#1266347)\n* CVE-2026-34182: CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages (bsc#1266344)\n* CVE-2025-9231: Fix timing side-channel in SM2 algorithm on 64 bit ARM (bsc#1250233)\n* CVE-2024-13176: Fix timing side-channel in ECDSA signature computation (bsc#1236136)\n\nPOWER performance enhancements:\n\n* Optimized MLDSA NTT, supports p8 and above architectures (jsc#PED-14569)\n\n- Adapt spec file for immutability via systemd-tmpfiles (jsc#PED-14813)\n- Fix check %{suse_version} \u003e 1600 (jsc#PED-15816)\n- Fix NULL pointer dereference when processing an OCSP response\n- Remove showciphers.c in favor of openssl ciphers\n- Use %ldconfig_scriptlets\n- Enable livepatching support for ppc64le [bsc#1257274]\n- Move ssl configuration files to the libopenssl package [bsc#1247463]\n- Don't install unneeded NOTES\n- Disable LTO for userspace livepatching [jsc#PED-13245]\n- Fix P-384 curve on lower-than-P9 PPC64 targets [bsc#1243014]\n- FIPS: Fix the speed command in FIPS mode for KMAC\n\n- FIPS: Restore the check to deny SHA1 signatures in FIPS mode and\n  the functionality to allow/deny via crypto-policies. [jsc#PED-12224]\n\nUpdate to 3.5.0:\n\n\n* Changes:\n\n    - Default encryption cipher for the req, cms, and smime applications\n      changed from des-ede3-cbc to aes-256-cbc.\n    - The default TLS supported groups list has been changed to include\n      and prefer hybrid PQC KEM groups. Some practically unused groups\n      were removed from the default list.\n    - The default TLS keyshares have been changed to offer X25519MLKEM768\n      and and X25519.\n    - All BIO_meth_get_*() functions were deprecated.\n\n  * New features:\n\n    - Support for server side QUIC (RFC 9000)\n    - Support for 3rd party QUIC stacks including 0-RTT support\n    - Support for PQC algorithms (ML-KEM, ML-DSA and SLH-DSA)\n    - A new configuration option no-tls-deprecated-ec to disable support\n      for TLS groups deprecated in RFC8422\n    - A new configuration option enable-fips-jitter to make the FIPS\n      provider to use the JITTER seed source\n    - Support for central key generation in CMP\n    - Support added for opaque symmetric key objects (EVP_SKEY)\n    - Support for multiple TLS keyshares and improved TLS key establishment\n      group configurability\n    - API support for pipelining in provided cipher algorithms\n\nChanges between 3.3.0 and 3.4.0:\n\n  * Changes:\n\n    - Deprecation of TS_VERIFY_CTX_set_* functions and addition of\n      replacement TS_VERIFY_CTX_set0_* functions with improved semantics\n    - The X25519 and X448 key exchange implementation in the FIPS provider\n      is unapproved and has fips=no property.\n    - SHAKE-128 and SHAKE-256 implementations have no default digest length\n      anymore. That means these algorithms cannot be used with\n      EVP_DigestFinal/_ex() unless the xoflen param is set before.\n    - Setting config_diagnostics=1 in the config file will cause errors to\n      be returned from SSL_CTX_new() and SSL_CTX_new_ex() if there is an\n      error in the ssl module configuration.\n    - An empty renegotiate extension will be used in TLS client hellos\n      instead of the empty renegotiation SCSV, for all connections with a\n      minimum TLS version \u003e 1.0.\n    - Deprecation of SSL_SESSION_get_time(), SSL_SESSION_set_time() and\n      SSL_CTX_flush_sessions() functions in favor of their respective _ex\n      functions which are Y2038-safe on platforms with Y2038-safe time_t\n\n  * New features:\n\n    - Support for directly fetched composite signature algorithms such as\n      RSA-SHA2-256 including new API functions\n    - FIPS indicators support in the FIPS provider and various updates of\n      the FIPS provider required for future FIPS 140-3 validations\n    - Implementation of RFC 9579 (PBMAC1) in PKCS#12\n    - An optional additional random seed source RNG JITTER using a statically\n      linked jitterentropy library\n    - New options -not_before and -not_after for explicit setting start and\n      end dates of certificates created with the req and x509 apps\n    - Support for integrity-only cipher suites TLS_SHA256_SHA256 and\n      TLS_SHA384_SHA384 in TLS 1.3, as defined in RFC 9150\n    - Support for retrieving certificate request templates and CRLs in CMP\n    - Support for additional X.509v3 extensions related to Attribute Certificates\n    - Initial Attribute Certificate (RFC 5755) support\n    - Possibility to customize ECC groups initialization to use precomputed\n      values to save CPU time and use of this feature by the P-256 implementation\n\nChanges between 3.2.0 and 3.3.0:\n\n  * Changes:\n\n    - Optimized AES-CTR for ARM Neoverse V1 and V2\n    - Various optimizations for cryptographic routines using RISC-V vector\n      crypto extensions\n    - Added assembly implementation for md5 on loongarch64\n    - Accept longer context for TLS 1.2 exporters\n    - The activate and soft_load configuration settings for providers in\n      openssl.cnf have been updated to require a value of [1|yes|true|on]\n      (in lower or UPPER case) to enable the setting. Conversely a value of\n      [0|no|false|off] will disable the setting.\n    - In openssl speed, changed the default hash function used with hmac from\n      md5 to sha256.\n    - The -verify option to the openssl crl and openssl req will make the\n      program exit with 1 on failure.\n    - The d2i_ASN1_GENERALIZEDTIME(), d2i_ASN1_UTCTIME(), ASN1_TIME_check(),\n      and related functions have been augmented to check for a minimum length\n      of the input string, in accordance with ITU-T X.690 section 11.7 and 11.8.\n    - OPENSSL_sk_push() and sk__push() functions now return 0 instead of -1\n      if called with a NULL stack argument.\n    - New limit on HTTP response headers is introduced to HTTP client.\n      The default limit is set to 256 header lines.\n\n  * Bug fixes and mitigations:\n\n    - The BIO_get_new_index() function can only be called 127 times before\n      it reaches its upper bound of BIO_TYPE_MASK and will now return -1\n      once its exhausted.\n\n  * new features:\n\n    - Support for qlog for tracing QUIC connections has been added\n    - Added APIs to allow configuring the negotiated idle timeout for QUIC\n      connections, and to allow determining the number of additional streams\n      that can currently be created for a QUIC connection.\n    - Added APIs to allow disabling implicit QUIC event processing for QUIC\n      SSL objects\n    - Added APIs to allow querying the size and utilisation of a QUIC\n      stream's write buffer\n    - New API SSL_write_ex2, which can be used to send an end-of-stream (FIN)\n      condition in an optimised way when using QUIC.\n    - Limited support for polling of QUIC connection and stream objects in a\n      non-blocking manner.\n    - Added a new EVP_DigestSqueeze() API. This allows SHAKE to squeeze multiple\n      times with different output sizes.\n    - The BLAKE2s hash algorithm matches BLAKE2b's support for configurable\n      output length.\n    - The EVP_PKEY_fromdata function has been augmented to allow for the\n      derivation of CRT (Chinese Remainder Theorem) parameters when requested\n    - Added API functions SSL_SESSION_get_time_ex(), SSL_SESSION_set_time_ex()\n      using time_t which is Y2038 safe on 32 bit systems when 64 bit time\n      is enabled.\n    - Unknown entries in TLS SignatureAlgorithms, ClientSignatureAlgorithms\n      config\n      options and the respective calls to SSL[_CTX]_set1_sigalgs() and\n      SSL[_CTX]_set1_client_sigalgs() that start with ? character are ignored\n      and the configuration will still be used.\n    - Added -set_issuer and -set_subject options to openssl x509 to override\n      the Issuer and Subject when creating a certificate. The -subj option\n      now is an alias for -set_subject.\n    - Added several new features of CMPv3 defined in RFC 9480 and RFC 9483\n    - New option SSL_OP_PREFER_NO_DHE_KEX, which allows configuring a TLS1.3\n      server to prefer session resumption using PSK-only key exchange over\n      PSK with DHE, if both are available.\n    - New atexit configuration switch, which controls whether the OPENSSL_cleanup\n      is registered when libcrypto is unloaded.\n    - Added X509_STORE_get1_objects to avoid issues with the existing\n      X509_STORE_get0_objects API in multi-threaded applications.\n    - Support for using certificate profiles and extened delayed delivery in CMP\n\n- FIPS: Mark SHA-1 as non-approved in the SLI. [jsc#PED-12224]\n\n- Introduce --without lto. When %{optflags} contains -flto=*, tests cases are\n  also built using -flto=* which significantly increases build times, this\n  option disables lto which improve iteration times when developing.\n\nUpdate to 3.2.4:\n\n- Remove the engines' directories and symlinks that were added to\n  allow parallel installations with openssl-1_1.\n- Add ktls capability [bsc#1216950]\n\nThis update also rebuilds nodejs24 to enable PQC.\n","status":"published","published":"2026-09-10T16:05:54Z","modified":"2026-09-10T17:12:46.701907223Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:05.392906Z"}]}}