Logo
-

Byte Open Security

(ByteOS Network)

Log In

Sign Up

ByteOS

Security
Vulnerability Details
Registries
Custom Views
Weaknesses
Attack Patterns
Filters & Tools
Vulnerability Details :

CVE-2026-45445

Summary
Assigner-openssl
Assigner Org ID-3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5
Published At-09 Jun, 2026 | 16:03
Updated At-10 Jun, 2026 | 07:48
Rejected At-
Credits

AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path

Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded. Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller, resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a single captured message. OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV. If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV) pair. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case. Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher() one-shot API are vulnerable. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Vendors
-
Not available
Products
-
Metrics (CVSS)
VersionBase scoreBase severityVector
Weaknesses
Attack Patterns
Solution/Workaround
References
HyperlinkResource Type
EPSS History
Score
Latest Score
-
N/A
No data available for selected date range
Percentile
Latest Percentile
-
N/A
No data available for selected date range
Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization (SSVC)
▼Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE)
cve.org
Assigner:openssl
Assigner Org ID:3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5
Published At:09 Jun, 2026 | 16:03
Updated At:10 Jun, 2026 | 07:48
Rejected At:
▼CVE Numbering Authority (CNA)
AES-OCB IV Ignored on EVP_Cipher() Path

Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded. Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller, resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a single captured message. OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV. If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV) pair. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case. Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher() one-shot API are vulnerable. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Affected Products
Vendor
OpenSSLOpenSSL
Product
OpenSSL
Default Status
unaffected
Versions
Affected
  • From 4.0.0 before 4.0.1 (semver)
  • From 3.6.0 before 3.6.3 (semver)
  • From 3.5.0 before 3.5.7 (semver)
  • From 3.4.0 before 3.4.6 (semver)
  • From 3.0.0 before 3.0.21 (semver)
Problem Types
TypeCWE IDDescription
CWECWE-325CWE-325 Missing Cryptographic Step
Type: CWE
CWE ID: CWE-325
Description: CWE-325 Missing Cryptographic Step
Metrics
VersionBase scoreBase severityVector
Metrics Other Info
https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/
text:
Moderate
Impacts
CAPEC IDDescription
Solutions

Configurations

Workarounds

Exploits

Credits

reporter
Alex Gaynor (Anthropic)
remediation developer
Viktor Dukhovni
Timeline
EventDate
Replaced By

Rejected Reason

References
HyperlinkResource
https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt
vendor-advisory
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/843c9b94ca9c2ed248bb30127bb4f3d7af0d607c
patch
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/787a6dfba81b7b09c1e05ab31396c0cd7c36b3f7
patch
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/983d54b5cce8d16147548ed1a37892d1720bbab6
patch
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7ac4715234ee72d9f3c93426a2c08554b5b771af
patch
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/323f0b6e7d530a4cb4336d50c88cb70f3ac2a451
patch
Hyperlink: https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt
Resource:
vendor-advisory
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/843c9b94ca9c2ed248bb30127bb4f3d7af0d607c
Resource:
patch
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/787a6dfba81b7b09c1e05ab31396c0cd7c36b3f7
Resource:
patch
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/983d54b5cce8d16147548ed1a37892d1720bbab6
Resource:
patch
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7ac4715234ee72d9f3c93426a2c08554b5b771af
Resource:
patch
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/323f0b6e7d530a4cb4336d50c88cb70f3ac2a451
Resource:
patch
▼Authorized Data Publishers (ADP)
CISA ADP Vulnrichment
Affected Products
Metrics
VersionBase scoreBase severityVector
3.17.5HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Version: 3.1
Base score: 7.5
Base severity: HIGH
Vector:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Metrics Other Info
Impacts
CAPEC IDDescription
Solutions

Configurations

Workarounds

Exploits

Credits

Timeline
EventDate
Replaced By

Rejected Reason

References
HyperlinkResource
Information is not available yet
▼National Vulnerability Database (NVD)
nvd.nist.gov
Source:openssl-security@openssl.org
Published At:09 Jun, 2026 | 17:17
Updated At:10 Jun, 2026 | 08:16

Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded. Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller, resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a single captured message. OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV. If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV) pair. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case. Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher() one-shot API are vulnerable. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

CISA Catalog
Date AddedDue DateVulnerability NameRequired Action
N/A
Date Added: N/A
Due Date: N/A
Vulnerability Name: N/A
Required Action: N/A
Metrics
TypeVersionBase scoreBase severityVector
Secondary3.17.5HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Type: Secondary
Version: 3.1
Base score: 7.5
Base severity: HIGH
Vector:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CPE Matches

Weaknesses
CWE IDTypeSource
CWE-325Secondaryopenssl-security@openssl.org
CWE ID: CWE-325
Type: Secondary
Source: openssl-security@openssl.org
Evaluator Description

Evaluator Impact

Evaluator Solution

Vendor Statements

References
HyperlinkSourceResource
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/323f0b6e7d530a4cb4336d50c88cb70f3ac2a451openssl-security@openssl.org
N/A
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/787a6dfba81b7b09c1e05ab31396c0cd7c36b3f7openssl-security@openssl.org
N/A
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7ac4715234ee72d9f3c93426a2c08554b5b771afopenssl-security@openssl.org
N/A
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/843c9b94ca9c2ed248bb30127bb4f3d7af0d607copenssl-security@openssl.org
N/A
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/983d54b5cce8d16147548ed1a37892d1720bbab6openssl-security@openssl.org
N/A
https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txtopenssl-security@openssl.org
N/A
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/323f0b6e7d530a4cb4336d50c88cb70f3ac2a451
Source: openssl-security@openssl.org
Resource: N/A
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/787a6dfba81b7b09c1e05ab31396c0cd7c36b3f7
Source: openssl-security@openssl.org
Resource: N/A
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7ac4715234ee72d9f3c93426a2c08554b5b771af
Source: openssl-security@openssl.org
Resource: N/A
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/843c9b94ca9c2ed248bb30127bb4f3d7af0d607c
Source: openssl-security@openssl.org
Resource: N/A
Hyperlink: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/983d54b5cce8d16147548ed1a37892d1720bbab6
Source: openssl-security@openssl.org
Resource: N/A
Hyperlink: https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt
Source: openssl-security@openssl.org
Resource: N/A

Change History

0
Information is not available yet

Similar CVEs

14Records found

CVE-2024-6119
Matching Score-8
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
ShareView Details
Matching Score-8
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
CVSS Score-7.5||HIGH
EPSS-14.26% / 94.54%
||
7 Day CHG-0.33%
Published-03 Sep, 2024 | 15:58
Updated-12 May, 2026 | 12:17
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
Possible denial of service in X.509 name checks

Issue summary: Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address resulting in abnormal termination of the application process. Impact summary: Abnormal termination of an application can a cause a denial of service. Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address when comparing the expected name with an `otherName` subject alternative name of an X.509 certificate. This may result in an exception that terminates the application program. Note that basic certificate chain validation (signatures, dates, ...) is not affected, the denial of service can occur only when the application also specifies an expected DNS name, Email address or IP address. TLS servers rarely solicit client certificates, and even when they do, they generally don't perform a name check against a reference identifier (expected identity), but rather extract the presented identity after checking the certificate chain. So TLS servers are generally not affected and the severity of the issue is Moderate. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-OpenSSLSiemens AGNetApp, Inc.
Product-h410c_firmwareh615c_firmwareontap_select_deploy_administration_utilityh610sc250h615ch300sh500sbootstrap_osbrocade_fabric_operating_systemmanagement_services_for_element_software_and_netapp_hcia250_firmwarea250h410ch700s_firmwareh300s_firmware500factive_iq_unified_manager500f_firmwareh500s_firmwareh610s_firmwareh610c_firmwarehci_compute_nodeh410s_firmwarec250_firmwareh610ch410sontap_toolsh700sopensslontap_9OpenSSLSIPLUS S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFPRUGGEDCOM RST2428PSIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518F-4 PN/DP MFPSIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFPSCALANCE XC-300/XR-300/XC-400/XR-500WG/XR-500 familySCALANCE XCM-/XRM-/XCH-/XRH-300 familyopenssl
CWE ID-CWE-843
Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')
CVE-2026-31790
Matching Score-8
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
ShareView Details
Matching Score-8
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
CVSS Score-7.5||HIGH
EPSS-0.04% / 13.04%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-07 Apr, 2026 | 22:00
Updated-12 May, 2026 | 13:17
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
Incorrect Failure Handling in RSA KEM RSASVE Encapsulation

Issue summary: Applications using RSASVE key encapsulation to establish a secret encryption key can send contents of an uninitialized memory buffer to a malicious peer. Impact summary: The uninitialized buffer might contain sensitive data from the previous execution of the application process which leads to sensitive data leakage to an attacker. RSA_public_encrypt() returns the number of bytes written on success and -1 on error. The affected code tests only whether the return value is non-zero. As a result, if RSA encryption fails, encapsulation can still return success to the caller, set the output lengths, and leave the caller to use the contents of the ciphertext buffer as if a valid KEM ciphertext had been produced. If applications use EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() with RSA/RSASVE on an attacker-supplied invalid RSA public key without first validating that key, then this may cause stale or uninitialized contents of the caller-provided ciphertext buffer to be disclosed to the attacker in place of the KEM ciphertext. As a workaround calling EVP_PKEY_public_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check_quick() before EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() will mitigate the issue. The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.1 and 3.0 are affected by this issue.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-OpenSSLSiemens AG
Product-opensslOpenSSLSIMATIC CN 4100
CWE ID-CWE-754
Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
CVE-2023-5363
Matching Score-8
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
ShareView Details
Matching Score-8
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
CVSS Score-7.5||HIGH
EPSS-6.31% / 91.14%
||
7 Day CHG-0.16%
Published-24 Oct, 2023 | 15:31
Updated-12 May, 2026 | 11:16
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
Incorrect cipher key & IV length processing

Issue summary: A bug has been identified in the processing of key and initialisation vector (IV) lengths. This can lead to potential truncation or overruns during the initialisation of some symmetric ciphers. Impact summary: A truncation in the IV can result in non-uniqueness, which could result in loss of confidentiality for some cipher modes. When calling EVP_EncryptInit_ex2(), EVP_DecryptInit_ex2() or EVP_CipherInit_ex2() the provided OSSL_PARAM array is processed after the key and IV have been established. Any alterations to the key length, via the "keylen" parameter or the IV length, via the "ivlen" parameter, within the OSSL_PARAM array will not take effect as intended, potentially causing truncation or overreading of these values. The following ciphers and cipher modes are impacted: RC2, RC4, RC5, CCM, GCM and OCB. For the CCM, GCM and OCB cipher modes, truncation of the IV can result in loss of confidentiality. For example, when following NIST's SP 800-38D section 8.2.1 guidance for constructing a deterministic IV for AES in GCM mode, truncation of the counter portion could lead to IV reuse. Both truncations and overruns of the key and overruns of the IV will produce incorrect results and could, in some cases, trigger a memory exception. However, these issues are not currently assessed as security critical. Changing the key and/or IV lengths is not considered to be a common operation and the vulnerable API was recently introduced. Furthermore it is likely that application developers will have spotted this problem during testing since decryption would fail unless both peers in the communication were similarly vulnerable. For these reasons we expect the probability of an application being vulnerable to this to be quite low. However if an application is vulnerable then this issue is considered very serious. For these reasons we have assessed this issue as Moderate severity overall. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this because the issue lies outside of the FIPS provider boundary. OpenSSL 3.1 and 3.0 are vulnerable to this issue.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-OpenSSLDebian GNU/LinuxSiemens AGNetApp, Inc.
Product-h410c_firmwaredebian_linuxh500s_firmwareh410s_firmwareh300sh500sh410sh410ch700s_firmwareh300s_firmwareopensslh700sOpenSSLSIPLUS S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFPSINEC NMSSIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518F-4 PN/DP MFPSIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFPSIDIS Prime
CWE ID-CWE-684
Incorrect Provision of Specified Functionality
CVE-2022-3358
Matching Score-8
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
ShareView Details
Matching Score-8
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
CVSS Score-7.5||HIGH
EPSS-19.45% / 95.52%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-11 Oct, 2022 | 15:00
Updated-16 Sep, 2024 | 16:33
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
Using a Custom Cipher with NID_undef may lead to NULL encryption

OpenSSL supports creating a custom cipher via the legacy EVP_CIPHER_meth_new() function and associated function calls. This function was deprecated in OpenSSL 3.0 and application authors are instead encouraged to use the new provider mechanism in order to implement custom ciphers. OpenSSL versions 3.0.0 to 3.0.5 incorrectly handle legacy custom ciphers passed to the EVP_EncryptInit_ex2(), EVP_DecryptInit_ex2() and EVP_CipherInit_ex2() functions (as well as other similarly named encryption and decryption initialisation functions). Instead of using the custom cipher directly it incorrectly tries to fetch an equivalent cipher from the available providers. An equivalent cipher is found based on the NID passed to EVP_CIPHER_meth_new(). This NID is supposed to represent the unique NID for a given cipher. However it is possible for an application to incorrectly pass NID_undef as this value in the call to EVP_CIPHER_meth_new(). When NID_undef is used in this way the OpenSSL encryption/decryption initialisation function will match the NULL cipher as being equivalent and will fetch this from the available providers. This will succeed if the default provider has been loaded (or if a third party provider has been loaded that offers this cipher). Using the NULL cipher means that the plaintext is emitted as the ciphertext. Applications are only affected by this issue if they call EVP_CIPHER_meth_new() using NID_undef and subsequently use it in a call to an encryption/decryption initialisation function. Applications that only use SSL/TLS are not impacted by this issue. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.6 (Affected 3.0.0-3.0.5).

Action-Not Available
Vendor-OpenSSL
Product-opensslOpenSSL
CWE ID-CWE-476
NULL Pointer Dereference
CVE-2026-42770
Matching Score-6
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
ShareView Details
Matching Score-6
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
CVSS Score-3.7||LOW
EPSS-Not Assigned
Published-09 Jun, 2026 | 16:03
Updated-10 Jun, 2026 | 08:16
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
FFC-DH Peer Validation Uses Attacker-Supplied q

Issue summary: When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the peer key is not properly checked for the subgroup membership. Impact summary: A malicious peer which presents an X9.42 key carrying the victim's p and g parameters, a forged q = r (a small prime factor of the cofactor (p−1)/q_local), and a public value Y of order r can recover the victim's private key after a small number of key exchange attempts. When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the subgroup membership check Y^q ≡ 1 (mod p) is performed using the peer's own q parameter, not the local key's q. The peer's domain parameters are then matched against the domain parameters of the private key, but the value of q is not compared. A malicious peer who presents an X9.42 key carrying the victim's p, g, a forged q = r (a small prime factor of the cofactor), and a public value Y of order r passes all checks. The shared secret then takes only r distinct values, leaking priv mod r. Repeating for each small-prime factor of the cofactor and combining via CRT recovers the full private key (Lim–Lee / small-subgroup-confinement attack). The realistic attack surface is narrow: principally CMP deployments with long-lived RA/CA DHX keys and bespoke enterprise or government applications using X9.42 DHX static keys with interactive protocols and therefore this issue was assigned Low severity. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are affected by this issue.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-OpenSSL
Product-OpenSSL
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CVE-2026-45446
Matching Score-6
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
ShareView Details
Matching Score-6
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
CVSS Score-4.8||MEDIUM
EPSS-Not Assigned
Published-09 Jun, 2026 | 16:03
Updated-10 Jun, 2026 | 08:16
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes

Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD to the victim's application using these ciphers. AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only if the tag is verified succesfully. In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data. If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its all-zeros value. When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without resetting the key. AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.2. No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-OpenSSL
Product-OpenSSL
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CVE-2025-69418
Matching Score-6
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
ShareView Details
Matching Score-6
Assigner-OpenSSL Software Foundation
CVSS Score-4||MEDIUM
EPSS-0.01% / 1.08%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-27 Jan, 2026 | 16:01
Updated-12 May, 2026 | 13:17
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
Unauthenticated/unencrypted trailing bytes with low-level OCB function calls

Issue summary: When using the low-level OCB API directly with AES-NI or<br>other hardware-accelerated code paths, inputs whose length is not a multiple<br>of 16 bytes can leave the final partial block unencrypted and unauthenticated.<br><br>Impact summary: The trailing 1-15 bytes of a message may be exposed in<br>cleartext on encryption and are not covered by the authentication tag,<br>allowing an attacker to read or tamper with those bytes without detection.<br><br>The low-level OCB encrypt and decrypt routines in the hardware-accelerated<br>stream path process full 16-byte blocks but do not advance the input/output<br>pointers. The subsequent tail-handling code then operates on the original<br>base pointers, effectively reprocessing the beginning of the buffer while<br>leaving the actual trailing bytes unprocessed. The authentication checksum<br>also excludes the true tail bytes.<br><br>However, typical OpenSSL consumers using EVP are not affected because the<br>higher-level EVP and provider OCB implementations split inputs so that full<br>blocks and trailing partial blocks are processed in separate calls, avoiding<br>the problematic code path. Additionally, TLS does not use OCB ciphersuites.<br>The vulnerability only affects applications that call the low-level<br>CRYPTO_ocb128_encrypt() or CRYPTO_ocb128_decrypt() functions directly with<br>non-block-aligned lengths in a single call on hardware-accelerated builds.<br>For these reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity.<br><br>The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected<br>by this issue, as OCB mode is not a FIPS-approved algorithm.<br><br>OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0 and 1.1.1 are vulnerable to this issue.<br><br>OpenSSL 1.0.2 is not affected by this issue.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-OpenSSLSiemens AG
Product-opensslOpenSSLSIMATIC S7-1500 TM MFP - GNU/Linux subsystem
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CVE-2026-4258
Matching Score-4
Assigner-Snyk
ShareView Details
Matching Score-4
Assigner-Snyk
CVSS Score-8.7||HIGH
EPSS-0.03% / 7.51%
||
7 Day CHG+0.01%
Published-17 Mar, 2026 | 05:00
Updated-03 Jun, 2026 | 14:47
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available

All versions of the package sjcl are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature due to missing point-on-curve validation in sjcl.ecc.basicKey.publicKey(). An attacker can recover a victim's ECDH private key by sending crafted off-curve public keys and observing ECDH outputs. The dhJavaEc() function directly returns the raw x-coordinate of the scalar multiplication result (no hashing), providing a plaintext oracle without requiring any decryption feedback.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-bitwiseshiftleftn/a
Product-stanford_javascript_crypto_librarysjcl
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CWE ID-CWE-347
Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature
CVE-2021-22946
Matching Score-4
Assigner-HackerOne
ShareView Details
Matching Score-4
Assigner-HackerOne
CVSS Score-7.5||HIGH
EPSS-0.06% / 19.70%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-29 Sep, 2021 | 00:00
Updated-16 Apr, 2026 | 15:16
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available

A user can tell curl >= 7.20.0 and <= 7.78.0 to require a successful upgrade to TLS when speaking to an IMAP, POP3 or FTP server (`--ssl-reqd` on the command line or`CURLOPT_USE_SSL` set to `CURLUSESSL_CONTROL` or `CURLUSESSL_ALL` withlibcurl). This requirement could be bypassed if the server would return a properly crafted but perfectly legitimate response.This flaw would then make curl silently continue its operations **withoutTLS** contrary to the instructions and expectations, exposing possibly sensitive data in clear text over the network.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-n/aOracle CorporationApple Inc.Debian GNU/LinuxSplunk LLC (Cisco Systems, Inc.)NetApp, Inc.Fedora ProjectSiemens AGCURL
Product-h300ecurlh410s_firmwareh500scommunications_cloud_native_core_security_edge_protection_proxycommunications_cloud_native_core_consoledebian_linuxpeoplesoft_enterprise_peopletoolsuniversal_forwarderh300s_firmwareoncommand_insightmysql_serverh700e_firmwaremacosh500s_firmwareh410scommunications_cloud_native_core_service_communication_proxyh700s_firmwareh300e_firmwareh500eclustered_data_ontaponcommand_workflow_automationh700eh700scommunications_cloud_native_core_binding_support_functioncommunications_cloud_native_core_network_repository_functionh300sh500e_firmwaresolidfire_baseboard_management_controller_firmwarecommerce_guided_searchcommunications_cloud_native_core_network_slice_selection_functionsinec_infrastructure_network_servicescommunications_cloud_native_core_network_function_cloud_native_environmentsnapcentercloud_backupfedorasolidfire_baseboard_management_controllerhttps://github.com/curl/curl
CWE ID-CWE-319
Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CVE-2026-22863
Matching Score-4
Assigner-GitHub, Inc.
ShareView Details
Matching Score-4
Assigner-GitHub, Inc.
CVSS Score-9.2||CRITICAL
EPSS-0.01% / 1.22%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-15 Jan, 2026 | 22:53
Updated-21 Jan, 2026 | 14:35
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
Deno node:crypto doesn't finalize cipher

Deno is a JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly runtime. Before 2.6.0, node:crypto doesn't finalize cipher. The vulnerability allows an attacker to have infinite encryptions. This can lead to naive attempts at brute forcing, as well as more refined attacks with the goal to learn the server secrets. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.6.0.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-denodenoland
Product-denodeno
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CVE-2021-33560
Matching Score-4
Assigner-MITRE Corporation
ShareView Details
Matching Score-4
Assigner-MITRE Corporation
CVSS Score-7.5||HIGH
EPSS-0.43% / 62.57%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-08 Jun, 2021 | 00:00
Updated-03 Dec, 2025 | 15:15
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available

Libgcrypt before 1.8.8 and 1.9.x before 1.9.3 mishandles ElGamal encryption because it lacks exponent blinding to address a side-channel attack against mpi_powm, and the window size is not chosen appropriately. This, for example, affects use of ElGamal in OpenPGP.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-gnupgn/aFedora ProjectOracle CorporationDebian GNU/Linux
Product-communications_cloud_native_core_service_communication_proxyfedoralibgcryptcommunications_cloud_native_core_binding_support_functioncommunications_cloud_native_core_network_slice_selection_functioncommunications_cloud_native_core_network_function_cloud_native_environmentdebian_linuxcommunications_cloud_native_core_network_repository_functionn/a
CWE ID-CWE-203
Observable Discrepancy
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CVE-2022-1279
Matching Score-4
Assigner-Switzerland National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)
ShareView Details
Matching Score-4
Assigner-Switzerland National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)
CVSS Score-6.5||MEDIUM
EPSS-0.08% / 23.49%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-14 Apr, 2022 | 07:40
Updated-02 Aug, 2024 | 23:55
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
Insecure EBICS messages encryption implementation in ebics-java/ebics-java-client could allow an adjacent attacker to decrypt EBICS payloads

A vulnerability in the encryption implementation of EBICS messages in the open source librairy ebics-java/ebics-java-client allows an attacker sniffing network traffic to decrypt EBICS payloads. This issue affects: ebics-java/ebics-java-client versions prior to 1.2.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-ebics_java_projectebics-java
Product-ebics_javaebics-java-client
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CVE-2023-46129
Matching Score-4
Assigner-GitHub, Inc.
ShareView Details
Matching Score-4
Assigner-GitHub, Inc.
CVSS Score-7.5||HIGH
EPSS-0.15% / 35.18%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-30 Oct, 2023 | 23:47
Updated-30 Mar, 2026 | 14:30
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available
xkeys Seal encryption used fixed key for all encryption

NATS.io is a high performance open source pub-sub distributed communication technology, built for the cloud, on-premise, IoT, and edge computing. The cryptographic key handling library, nkeys, recently gained support for encryption, not just for signing/authentication. This is used in nats-server 2.10 (Sep 2023) and newer for authentication callouts. In nkeys versions 0.4.0 through 0.4.5, corresponding with NATS server versions 2.10.0 through 2.10.3, the nkeys library's `xkeys` encryption handling logic mistakenly passed an array by value into an internal function, where the function mutated that buffer to populate the encryption key to use. As a result, all encryption was actually to an all-zeros key. This affects encryption only, not signing. FIXME: FILL IN IMPACT ON NATS-SERVER AUTH CALLOUT SECURITY. nkeys Go library 0.4.6, corresponding with NATS Server 2.10.4, has a patch for this issue. No known workarounds are available. For any application handling auth callouts in Go, if using the nkeys library, update the dependency, recompile and deploy that in lockstep.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-natsnats-ioThe Linux Foundation
Product-nkeysnats-servernkeys
CWE ID-CWE-321
Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CVE-2023-36539
Matching Score-4
Assigner-Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
ShareView Details
Matching Score-4
Assigner-Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
CVSS Score-5.3||MEDIUM
EPSS-0.18% / 40.16%
||
7 Day CHG~0.00%
Published-30 Jun, 2023 | 02:01
Updated-28 Oct, 2024 | 13:04
Rejected-Not Available
Known To Be Used In Ransomware Campaigns?-Not Available
KEV Added-Not Available
KEV Action Due Date-Not Available

Exposure of information intended to be encrypted by some Zoom clients may lead to disclosure of sensitive information.

Action-Not Available
Vendor-Zoom Communications, Inc.
Product-poly_ccx_700yealink_mp56_firmwareyealink_mp54_firmwareyealink_vp59_firmwarevideo_software_development_kitroomsyealink_mp56meetingszoomyealink_mp54poly_ccx_700_firmwarepoly_ccx_600poly_ccx_600_firmwareyealink_vp59Zoom clients
CWE ID-CWE-200
Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE ID-CWE-325
Missing Cryptographic Step
CWE ID-CWE-326
Inadequate Encryption Strength
Details not found