{"id":"CVE-2026-71888","aliases":["DEBIAN-CVE-2026-71888","EUVD-2026-91991","GHSA-j453-27jp-4cph","OESA-2026-4243","OESA-2026-4244","OESA-2026-4245","OESA-2026-4246","ROOT-APP-MAVEN-CVE-2026-71888","SUSE-SU-2026:24461-1","SUSE-SU-2026:4797-1","UBUNTU-CVE-2026-71888","openSUSE-SU-2026:12090-1","openSUSE-SU-2026:22169-1"],"status":"published","title":"CMS AuthenticatedData exposes attacker-inserted authAttrs when digestAlgorithm is absent","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).","severity":{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high","assessor":"cna","from":"cve"},"epss":{"day":"2026-11-10","score":0.00112,"percentile":0.01386,"model":"v2026.06.15"},"facts":{"in_kev":false,"known_exploited":false,"public_exploit":false,"fix_available":true},"cwes":["CWE-354"],"published":"2026-10-03T08:36:12Z","modified":"2026-11-04T17:27:22Z","fixes":[{"ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"bouncycastle","fixed_in":["1.86-1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP4","package":"bouncycastle","fixed_in":["1.67-3.oe2203sp4"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP1","package":"bouncycastle","fixed_in":["1.67-3.oe2403sp1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP3","package":"bouncycastle","fixed_in":["1.67-3.oe2403sp3"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP4","package":"bouncycastle","fixed_in":["1.67-3.oe2403sp4"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Root:Maven","package":"org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on","fixed_in":["1.69-aikido.1","1.68-aikido.2","1.70-aikido.4","1.64-aikido.5"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Root:Maven","package":"io.root.org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on","fixed_in":["1.69-root.io.1","1.68-root.io.2","1.70-root.io.4","1.64-root.io.5"],"sources":["osv"]}],"affected":[{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:12","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.72-2","1.77-1","1.80-1","1.80-2","1.80-3","1.86-1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:13","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.80-3","1.86-1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-1"}]}],"versions":["1.80-3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP4","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.67-3.oe2203sp4"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP1","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.67-3.oe2403sp1"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP3","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.67-3.oe2403sp3"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP4","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.67-3.oe2403sp4"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Root:Maven","package":"org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.69-aikido.1"},{"fixed":"1.68-aikido.2"},{"fixed":"1.70-aikido.4"},{"fixed":"1.64-aikido.5"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Root:Maven","package":"io.root.org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.69-root.io.1"},{"fixed":"1.68-root.io.2"},{"fixed":"1.70-root.io.4"},{"fixed":"1.64-root.io.5"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 16.0","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.0","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Development Tools 15 SP7","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-ESPOS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP5-ESPOS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP5-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP4-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP5-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP6-LTSS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP4","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP5","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"SUSE:Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP6","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-150200.3.41.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.49+dfsg-3ubuntu1","1.51-4ubuntu1","1.51-4ubuntu1+esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.57-1","1.58-1","1.59-1","1.59-1ubuntu0.1~esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:20.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.61-1","1.61-1ubuntu0.1~esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:22.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.68-2","1.68-4","1.68-5","1.68-5ubuntu0.1~esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:24.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.72-2","1.77-1","1.77-1ubuntu0.1~esm1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.10","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.80-3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1.80-3"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Tumbleweed","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-1.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Leap 16.0","package":"bouncycastle","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1.86-160000.1.1"}]}],"bundled":14}],"products":[{"vendor":"legion of the bouncy castle inc.","product":"bc-fja"},{"vendor":"legion of the bouncy castle inc.","product":"bc-java"},{"vendor":"legion of the bouncy castle inc.","product":"bc-lts-java"}],"references":[{"url":"https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9071888","tags":["vendor-advisory","advisory","report"]},{"url":"https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/dcb683b32b440f1beb1d2276a34930164281fb95","tags":["patch","fix","report"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-71888","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-j453-27jp-4cph"},{"url":"https://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java-fips/","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java-lts/","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java/","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2026/71xxx/CVE-2026-71888.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java","tags":["package"]},{"url":"https://github.com/bcgit/bc-lts-java","tags":["package"]},{"url":"https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-71888","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-4243","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-4244","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-4245","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-4246","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202624461-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284065","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284073","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284075","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284165","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284205","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284212","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284213","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284215","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284218","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284219","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284220","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284221","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284222","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1284224","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-17507","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-17508","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18036","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-18040","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71885","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71886","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71887","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71888","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71889","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71890","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71891","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-71892","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-85515","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-97873","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-20264797-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-71888","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-71888","tags":["report"]},{"url":"","tags":["advisory"]}],"sources":{"cve":[{"id":"CVE-2026-71888","title":"CMS AuthenticatedData exposes attacker-inserted authAttrs when digestAlgorithm is absent","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).","status":"published","published":"2026-10-03T08:36:12.96Z","modified":"2026-10-05T16:52:07.424Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high","assessor":"cna"}],"cwes":["CWE-354"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:19:49.559463Z"}],"euvd":[{"id":"EUVD-2026-91991","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).","status":"published","published":"2026-10-03T08:36:12Z","modified":"2026-10-05T16:52:07Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T17:27:39.384414Z"}],"ghsa":[{"id":"GHSA-j453-27jp-4cph","title":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a...","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).","status":"published","published":"2026-10-03T09:31:18Z","modified":"2026-10-03T09:31:26Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-354"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:12:44.85091Z"}],"nvd":[{"id":"CVE-2026-71888","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).","status":"published","published":"2026-10-03T09:17:05.25Z","modified":"2026-10-06T14:49:40.823Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber","level":"high","assessor":"secondary"}],"cwes":["CWE-354"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:12:53.75133Z"}],"osv":[{"id":"CVE-2026-71888","title":"CMS AuthenticatedData exposes attacker-inserted authAttrs when digestAlgorithm is absent","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).","status":"published","published":"2026-10-03T08:36:12.96Z","modified":"2026-11-04T17:27:22.871701356Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-354"],"updated_at":"2026-11-04T17:42:02.900773Z"},{"id":"DEBIAN-CVE-2026-71888","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).","status":"published","published":"2026-10-03T09:17:05.25Z","modified":"2026-10-07T09:47:36.211151205Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:46:02.094661Z"},{"id":"OESA-2026-4243","title":"bouncycastle security update","description":"The package is organised so that it contains a light-weight API suitable for use in any environment (including the newly released J2ME) with the additional infrastructure to conform the algorithms to the JCE framework.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIn Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).(CVE-2026-71888)","status":"published","published":"2026-10-16T11:58:32Z","modified":"2026-10-16T12:15:04.192725634Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:52:47.643553Z"},{"id":"OESA-2026-4244","title":"bouncycastle security update","description":"The package is organised so that it contains a light-weight API suitable for use in any environment (including the newly released J2ME) with the additional infrastructure to conform the algorithms to the JCE framework.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIn Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).(CVE-2026-71888)","status":"published","published":"2026-10-16T11:58:32Z","modified":"2026-10-16T12:15:04.197166595Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:52:47.643553Z"},{"id":"OESA-2026-4245","title":"bouncycastle security update","description":"The package is organised so that it contains a light-weight API suitable for use in any environment (including the newly released J2ME) with the additional infrastructure to conform the algorithms to the JCE framework.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIn Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).(CVE-2026-71888)","status":"published","published":"2026-10-16T11:58:33Z","modified":"2026-10-16T12:15:04.299714991Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:52:47.643553Z"},{"id":"OESA-2026-4246","title":"bouncycastle security update","description":"The package is organised so that it contains a light-weight API suitable for use in any environment (including the newly released J2ME) with the additional infrastructure to conform the algorithms to the JCE framework.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIn Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).(CVE-2026-71888)","status":"published","published":"2026-10-16T11:58:33Z","modified":"2026-10-16T12:15:06.202911525Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:52:47.643553Z"},{"id":"UBUNTU-CVE-2026-71888","description":"In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).","status":"published","published":"2026-10-03T09:17:00Z","modified":"2026-10-17T13:00:48.26966366Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":8.7,"vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:57:03.035847Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:12090-1","title":"bouncycastle-1.86-1.1 on GA media","description":"These are all security issues fixed in the bouncycastle-1.86-1.1 package on the GA media of openSUSE Tumbleweed.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-09T00:00:00Z","modified":"2026-10-10T17:23:22.29222791Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:40.245664Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:22169-1","title":"Security update for bouncycastle","description":"This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:\n\nUpdate to 1.86:\n\n- CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion\n  (bsc#1284075).\n- CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).\n- CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel\n  attacks (bsc#1284065).\n- CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks\n  (bsc#1284205).\n- CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group\n  message interception (bsc#1284165).\n- CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and\n  identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).\n- CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust\n  context spoofing (bsc#1284213).\n- CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute\n  injection (bsc#1284215).\n- CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses\n  (bsc#1284218).\n- CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and\n  session takeover (bsc#1284219).\n- CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses\n  (bsc#1284220).\n- CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived\n  content keys (bsc#1284221).\n- CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors\n  and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).\n- CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource\n  exhaustion (bsc#1284224).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-10-26T13:05:47Z","modified":"2026-11-01T17:23:28.414155623Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:42.426393Z"},{"id":"ROOT-APP-MAVEN-CVE-2026-71888","title":"CVE-2026-71888 in org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on - Patched by Root","description":"Root has patched CVE-2026-71888 in the org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on package for Root:Maven. Multiple fixed versions available.","status":"published","published":"2026-10-07T13:13:52Z","modified":"2026-10-07T14:15:05.184684248Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:53:27.066589Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:24461-1","title":"Security update for bouncycastle","description":"This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:\n\nUpdate to 1.86:\n\n- CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion\n  (bsc#1284075).\n- CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).\n- CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel\n  attacks (bsc#1284065).\n- CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks\n  (bsc#1284205).\n- CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group\n  message interception (bsc#1284165).\n- CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and\n  identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).\n- CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust\n  context spoofing (bsc#1284213).\n- CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute\n  injection (bsc#1284215).\n- CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses\n  (bsc#1284218).\n- CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and\n  session takeover (bsc#1284219).\n- CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses\n  (bsc#1284220).\n- CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived\n  content keys (bsc#1284221).\n- CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors\n  and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).\n- CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource\n  exhaustion (bsc#1284224).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-10-26T13:14:44Z","modified":"2026-11-04T17:23:17.638528053Z","updated_at":"2026-11-04T17:43:22.558805Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:4797-1","title":"Security update for bouncycastle","description":"This update for bouncycastle fixes the following issues:\n\n- CVE-2026-17507: negative signed leaf_index values from unsigned wire encodings can cause heap exhaustion\n  (bsc#1284075).\n- CVE-2026-17508: unbounded KDF iteration and memory parameters can cause resource exhaustion (bsc#1284073).\n- CVE-2026-18036: variable-time modulo and division operations in NTRU implementation can allow timing side-channel\n  attacks (bsc#1284065).\n- CVE-2026-18040: table lookups and variable-time duplicate scanning in HQC can cause cache side-channel leaks\n  (bsc#1284205).\n- CVE-2026-71885: unbound X.509 certificates in MLS LeafNode verification can cause identity impersonation and group\n  message interception (bsc#1284165).\n- CVE-2026-71886: unvalidated CERTIFY_OTHER flags in OpenPGP subkeys can cause unauthorized trust delegations and\n  identity spoofing (bsc#1284212).\n- CVE-2026-71887: missing primary key back-signature validation on subkeys can cause signature misattribution and trust\n  context spoofing (bsc#1284213).\n- CVE-2026-71888: disagreement between digestAlgorithm and authAttrs in CMS parsing can cause unauthenticated attribute\n  injection (bsc#1284215).\n- CVE-2026-71889: skipped leaf certificate evaluation in checkNameConstraints can cause X.509 name constraint bypasses\n  (bsc#1284218).\n- CVE-2026-71890: unbounded Remove proposals in external MLS commits can cause arbitrary group member eviction and\n  session takeover (bsc#1284219).\n- CVE-2026-71891: forged ECPoint curves in BLS12-381 key validation can cause aggregate signature verification bypasses\n  (bsc#1284220).\n- CVE-2026-71892: type mismatch in CMS key-transport validation can cause key-size enforcement bypasses for HKDF-derived\n  content keys (bsc#1284221).\n- CVE-2026-85515: laundered EOF exceptions in OpenPGP message stream processing can cause unregistered truncation errors\n  and integrity check bypasses (bsc#1284222).\n- CVE-2026-97873: unbounded iteration counts in legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE implementations can cause resource\n  exhaustion (bsc#1284224).\n\nChanges for bouncycastle:\n\n- Updated to version 1.86.\n","status":"published","published":"2026-10-21T07:54:59Z","modified":"2026-10-21T20:02:15.286117133Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:05.838224Z"}]}}