CVE-2026-71887 - OpenPGP data signature accepted from a signing subkey without cross-certification
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71887
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.
Severity: 8.2 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71887
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.
Severity: 8.2 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-71888 - CMS AuthenticatedData exposes attacker-inserted authAttrs when digestAlgorithm is absent
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71888
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
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: 8.7 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71888
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
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: 8.7 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-71889 - PKIXCertPathReviewer does not apply X.509 name constraints to the target certificate
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71889
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, neither copy of PKIXCertPathReviewer - org.bouncycastle.pkix.jcajce.PKIXCertPathReviewer nor the legacy org.bouncycastle.x509.PKIXCertPathReviewer - applied X.509 name constraints to the end-entity certificate. checkNameConstraints walked the path with a loop bound of index greater than zero, which is the bound the CA-only steps require, but index zero is the target certificate under the standard CertPath ordering, so the permitted and excluded subtree checks of RFC 5280 sec. 6.1.3 (b) and (c) never ran against the leaf's subject DN or its subjectAltName. A chain whose leaf violated a NameConstraints extension imposed by its own issuing CA therefore reported isValidCertPath() true with an empty error list, while CertPathValidator.getInstance("PKIX", "BC"), which shares no code with the reviewer, rejected the identical chain against the identical trust anchor. An application using the reviewer to make the trust decision rather than for diagnostics alongside a real validation accepted a certificate the constrained CA was never authorised to issue. Both copies now check every certificate in the path including the target, waive the sec. 4.2.1.10 self-issued exemption for the final certificate as sec. 6.1.3 requires, and skip the sec. 6.1.4 (g) constraint-accumulation step for the target. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, which carries only the org.bouncycastle.pkix.jcajce copy of the reviewer. It also affects 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).
Severity: 8.7 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71889
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, neither copy of PKIXCertPathReviewer - org.bouncycastle.pkix.jcajce.PKIXCertPathReviewer nor the legacy org.bouncycastle.x509.PKIXCertPathReviewer - applied X.509 name constraints to the end-entity certificate. checkNameConstraints walked the path with a loop bound of index greater than zero, which is the bound the CA-only steps require, but index zero is the target certificate under the standard CertPath ordering, so the permitted and excluded subtree checks of RFC 5280 sec. 6.1.3 (b) and (c) never ran against the leaf's subject DN or its subjectAltName. A chain whose leaf violated a NameConstraints extension imposed by its own issuing CA therefore reported isValidCertPath() true with an empty error list, while CertPathValidator.getInstance("PKIX", "BC"), which shares no code with the reviewer, rejected the identical chain against the identical trust anchor. An application using the reviewer to make the trust decision rather than for diagnostics alongside a real validation accepted a certificate the constrained CA was never authorised to issue. Both copies now check every certificate in the path including the target, waive the sec. 4.2.1.10 self-issued exemption for the final certificate as sec. 6.1.3 requires, and skip the sec. 6.1.4 (g) constraint-accumulation step for the target. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, which carries only the org.bouncycastle.pkix.jcajce copy of the reviewer. It also affects 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).
Severity: 8.7 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-71890 - MLS external commit can remove an arbitrary group member
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71890
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, validation of an MLS (RFC 9420) external commit's proposal list, org.bouncycastle.mls.protocol.Group.validateExternalCachedProposals, counted the proposals by type and bounded the removed leaf index but never established that the removed leaf had anything to do with the joiner. RFC 9420 sec. 12.2 permits at most one Remove proposal in an external commit, with which the joiner removes an old version of themselves, and requires that where one is present the LeafNode in the commit's path field meet the criteria it would have to meet in an Update for the removed leaf, in particular that its credential present identifiers acceptable for the removed participant. The ordinary proposal-list validator's self-remove rule is deliberately not applied on this path, because a resync commit legitimately removes a leaf the joiner owns, but nothing was put in its place. Any party holding the group's public GroupInfo, which is precisely what an external joiner is meant to be given, could therefore commit a Remove naming any member's LeafIndex and have every member apply it, evicting that member and taking over their slot in the ratchet tree. The credential check that should have prevented this existed only in the gRPC interop harness and so protected no other caller of the public Group.externalJoin and Group.handle API. An external commit carrying a Remove is now accepted only when the removed leaf's credential is identical to the one in the joiner's own new leaf, on both the sending and the receiving side.
Severity: 8.7 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71890
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, validation of an MLS (RFC 9420) external commit's proposal list, org.bouncycastle.mls.protocol.Group.validateExternalCachedProposals, counted the proposals by type and bounded the removed leaf index but never established that the removed leaf had anything to do with the joiner. RFC 9420 sec. 12.2 permits at most one Remove proposal in an external commit, with which the joiner removes an old version of themselves, and requires that where one is present the LeafNode in the commit's path field meet the criteria it would have to meet in an Update for the removed leaf, in particular that its credential present identifiers acceptable for the removed participant. The ordinary proposal-list validator's self-remove rule is deliberately not applied on this path, because a resync commit legitimately removes a leaf the joiner owns, but nothing was put in its place. Any party holding the group's public GroupInfo, which is precisely what an external joiner is meant to be given, could therefore commit a Remove naming any member's LeafIndex and have every member apply it, evicting that member and taking over their slot in the ratchet tree. The credential check that should have prevented this existed only in the gRPC interop harness and so protected no other caller of the public Group.externalJoin and Group.handle API. An external commit carrying a Remove is now accepted only when the removed leaf's credential is identical to the one in the joiner's own new leaf, on both the sending and the receiving side.
Severity: 8.7 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-71891 - BLS12-381 key validation accepts a public key built on a foreign curve
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71891
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, BLS12_381BasicScheme.keyValidate, and so BLSPublicKeyParameters and every BasicScheme, MessageAugmentation and ProofOfPossession verify and aggregateVerify that gate on it, accepted a public key built on a foreign ECCurve that merely shares BLS12-381's field characteristic. The prime-order subgroup check trusts a point's own curve to name its cofactor, since ECPoint.satisfiesOrder returns true outright when the curve's cofactor is one, so a point on a curve with a different equation and a cofactor forged to one passed keyValidate despite not being a G1 point at all. In BC's pairing implementation such a point contributes the identity in the target group, so an aggregate signature verified against a set of public keys including it is accepted even though it contains no signature for that key and message pair, admitting a phantom signer. keyValidate now first confirms that the point's curve carries exactly the canonical G1 field, equation, order and cofactor before any subgroup check. The issue is reachable only where an application constructs an ECPoint on an explicit, non-canonical curve and accepts it as an authority-bearing key; the standard 48-byte compressed-point decoder always supplies the canonical curve and was never affected.
Severity: 7.1 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71891
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, BLS12_381BasicScheme.keyValidate, and so BLSPublicKeyParameters and every BasicScheme, MessageAugmentation and ProofOfPossession verify and aggregateVerify that gate on it, accepted a public key built on a foreign ECCurve that merely shares BLS12-381's field characteristic. The prime-order subgroup check trusts a point's own curve to name its cofactor, since ECPoint.satisfiesOrder returns true outright when the curve's cofactor is one, so a point on a curve with a different equation and a cofactor forged to one passed keyValidate despite not being a G1 point at all. In BC's pairing implementation such a point contributes the identity in the target group, so an aggregate signature verified against a set of public keys including it is accepted even though it contains no signature for that key and message pair, admitting a phantom signer. keyValidate now first confirms that the point's curve carries exactly the canonical G1 field, equation, order and cofactor before any subgroup check. The issue is reachable only where an application constructs an ECPoint on an explicit, non-canonical curve and accepts it as an authority-bearing key; the standard 48-byte compressed-point decoder always supplies the canonical curve and was never affected.
Severity: 7.1 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-71892 - CMS key-transport recipient key-size validation never runs for RFC 9709 HKDF-derived keys
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71892
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
Severity: 6.9 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-71892
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
Severity: 6.9 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-85515 - OpenPGP message truncation not reported, bypassing the SEIPDv1 integrity check
CVE ID :CVE-2026-85515
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, a truncated OpenPGP encrypted message was accepted with no error reported, and on the SEIPD version 1 path with no integrity check performed at all. RFC 9580 sec. 13.7 permits an implementation to release the cleartext of the fully authenticated chunks when streaming but requires it to indicate a clear error as soon as the truncation is detected, and to report suspect integrity when it discovers malleable ciphertext. The truncation was detected and then discarded: when a message is truncated but the length field of the enclosing packet is left unchanged, BCPGInputStream.PartialInputStream raises an EOFException for the missing ciphertext, and BCPGInputStream.nextPacketTag() reports an EOFException as a clean end of message, so the packet stream above it stopped as though no packets remained. On the AEAD path (SEIPD version 2 and the version 5 AEAD packet), when the literal data packet ended on an AEAD chunk boundary and the consumer read in increments smaller than one chunk, the look-ahead for the packet after the literal triggered the truncated chunk read, so BcAEADUtil and JceAEADUtil never reached the trailing message tag of sec. 5.13.2 that authenticates the total plaintext length; the caller received the plaintext of the fully authenticated chunks, every packet following the literal was silently dropped, and no exception was raised, so a signed and encrypted message read back as a well-formed unsigned one. Every byte released on that path remained individually authenticated, making this a missing truncation error rather than a forgery, and it is a residual of CVE-2026-12817, which closed the same outcome for an attacker who corrects the outer packet length. On the SEIPD version 1 path the consequence was more serious: IntegrityProtectedInputStream verifies the modification detection code from close(), and reached close() only by closing itself when a read of it returned -1, which a truncated message never produces, so PGPEncryptedData.verify() never ran and the recipient was handed CFB-decrypted plaintext on which no integrity check of any kind had been performed. Measured on a message truncated into that shape, 136 distinct single-byte modifications of the ciphertext produced accepted, altered plaintext with no exception raised. Reachability is a property of the message rather than of attacker-supplied input: the AEAD shape held for 3 of 131 consecutive payload lengths measured, and the SEIPD version 1 shape for one payload length in sixteen, at a truncation offset that did not move with the payload length. The low-level API is unaffected, a caller that invokes PGPEncryptedData.verify() directly getting the check regardless, as are consumers reading in increments of a whole AEAD chunk or more. The AEAD decryption streams now re-throw such an EOFException as a plain IOException, which nextPacketTag() does not launder; OpenPGPMessageInputStream.close() now closes its layer's integrity-protected stream itself rather than relying on that stream having seen the end of its data; and IntegrityProtectedInputStream.close() was made idempotent, as java.io.Closeable requires, which that depends on, since the stream is genuinely closed twice on the ordinary path and PGPEncryptedData.verify() consumes the digest state behind it and cannot be run a second time. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, on the AEAD route only, as that edition does not ship the high-level OpenPGP API the SEIPDv1 route runs through. It also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.14 (1.0.X series), 2.0.14.1 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.14 (2.1.X series), on the AEAD route only, as those editions do not ship the high-level OpenPGP API.
Severity: 8.2 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-85515
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, a truncated OpenPGP encrypted message was accepted with no error reported, and on the SEIPD version 1 path with no integrity check performed at all. RFC 9580 sec. 13.7 permits an implementation to release the cleartext of the fully authenticated chunks when streaming but requires it to indicate a clear error as soon as the truncation is detected, and to report suspect integrity when it discovers malleable ciphertext. The truncation was detected and then discarded: when a message is truncated but the length field of the enclosing packet is left unchanged, BCPGInputStream.PartialInputStream raises an EOFException for the missing ciphertext, and BCPGInputStream.nextPacketTag() reports an EOFException as a clean end of message, so the packet stream above it stopped as though no packets remained. On the AEAD path (SEIPD version 2 and the version 5 AEAD packet), when the literal data packet ended on an AEAD chunk boundary and the consumer read in increments smaller than one chunk, the look-ahead for the packet after the literal triggered the truncated chunk read, so BcAEADUtil and JceAEADUtil never reached the trailing message tag of sec. 5.13.2 that authenticates the total plaintext length; the caller received the plaintext of the fully authenticated chunks, every packet following the literal was silently dropped, and no exception was raised, so a signed and encrypted message read back as a well-formed unsigned one. Every byte released on that path remained individually authenticated, making this a missing truncation error rather than a forgery, and it is a residual of CVE-2026-12817, which closed the same outcome for an attacker who corrects the outer packet length. On the SEIPD version 1 path the consequence was more serious: IntegrityProtectedInputStream verifies the modification detection code from close(), and reached close() only by closing itself when a read of it returned -1, which a truncated message never produces, so PGPEncryptedData.verify() never ran and the recipient was handed CFB-decrypted plaintext on which no integrity check of any kind had been performed. Measured on a message truncated into that shape, 136 distinct single-byte modifications of the ciphertext produced accepted, altered plaintext with no exception raised. Reachability is a property of the message rather than of attacker-supplied input: the AEAD shape held for 3 of 131 consecutive payload lengths measured, and the SEIPD version 1 shape for one payload length in sixteen, at a truncation offset that did not move with the payload length. The low-level API is unaffected, a caller that invokes PGPEncryptedData.verify() directly getting the check regardless, as are consumers reading in increments of a whole AEAD chunk or more. The AEAD decryption streams now re-throw such an EOFException as a plain IOException, which nextPacketTag() does not launder; OpenPGPMessageInputStream.close() now closes its layer's integrity-protected stream itself rather than relying on that stream having seen the end of its data; and IntegrityProtectedInputStream.close() was made idempotent, as java.io.Closeable requires, which that depends on, since the stream is genuinely closed twice on the ordinary path and PGPEncryptedData.verify() consumes the digest state behind it and cannot be run a second time. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, on the AEAD route only, as that edition does not ship the high-level OpenPGP API the SEIPDv1 route runs through. It also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.14 (1.0.X series), 2.0.14.1 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.14 (2.1.X series), on the AEAD route only, as those editions do not ship the high-level OpenPGP API.
Severity: 8.2 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-97873 - Legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE iteration count honoured unbounded in the raw JCA provider
CVE ID :CVE-2026-97873
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the raw JCA provider's legacy PBES1 (PKCS#5 scheme 1) and PKCS#12 PBE families ran their password-based key derivation with an iteration count taken from untrusted input without bounding it, so a small input could dictate an arbitrary amount of work before anything could be verified. The AlgorithmParameters implementations (PKCS12PBE and its object identifier aliases, and PBKDF1) accepted any count from an encoded PKCS12PBEParams or PBEParameter, narrowing a value beyond the int range with intValue(), and every Cipher, Mac and SecretKeyFactory in these families derived with whatever count it was given, including one decoded by another provider's AlgorithmParameters, as when javax.crypto.EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo.getKeySpec() decrypts a PKCS#12 PBE-protected private key with BC. Both the parameter parse and the derivations now reject a negative or over-limit count under the org.bouncycastle.pbe.max_iteration_count property (default 10,000,000) that already bounded PBKDF2 (CVE-2026-17508), and the parse rejects a count beyond the int range rather than narrowing it. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13.
Severity: 5.3 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-97873
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 9:17 a.m. | 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Description :In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the raw JCA provider's legacy PBES1 (PKCS#5 scheme 1) and PKCS#12 PBE families ran their password-based key derivation with an iteration count taken from untrusted input without bounding it, so a small input could dictate an arbitrary amount of work before anything could be verified. The AlgorithmParameters implementations (PKCS12PBE and its object identifier aliases, and PBKDF1) accepted any count from an encoded PKCS12PBEParams or PBEParameter, narrowing a value beyond the int range with intValue(), and every Cipher, Mac and SecretKeyFactory in these families derived with whatever count it was given, including one decoded by another provider's AlgorithmParameters, as when javax.crypto.EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo.getKeySpec() decrypts a PKCS#12 PBE-protected private key with BC. Both the parameter parse and the derivations now reject a negative or over-limit count under the org.bouncycastle.pbe.max_iteration_count property (default 10,000,000) that already bounded PBKDF2 (CVE-2026-17508), and the parse rejects a count beyond the int range rather than narrowing it. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13.
Severity: 5.3 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-104983 - Linux Mint Xreader PDF Attachment Saving ev-window.c g_file_get_child path traversal
CVE ID :CVE-2026-104983
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 11:17 a.m. | 38 minutes ago
Description :A vulnerability has been found in Linux Mint Xreader up to 4.6.9. Impacted is the function g_file_get_child of the file shell/ev-window.c of the component PDF Attachment Saving Handler. Such manipulation of the argument attachment leads to path traversal. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. One of the project maintainers closed this issue as "completed", because "EPUB support was removed from Xreader and reimplemented in Xepub". Code analysis indicates that this might be a misunderstanding of the situation.
Severity: 7.5 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-104983
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 11:17 a.m. | 38 minutes ago
Description :A vulnerability has been found in Linux Mint Xreader up to 4.6.9. Impacted is the function g_file_get_child of the file shell/ev-window.c of the component PDF Attachment Saving Handler. Such manipulation of the argument attachment leads to path traversal. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. One of the project maintainers closed this issue as "completed", because "EPUB support was removed from Xreader and reimplemented in Xepub". Code analysis indicates that this might be a misunderstanding of the situation.
Severity: 7.5 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105105 - Unauthenticated ZeroMQ command/telemetry bus in AIT-Core allows remote spacecraft command injection and telemetry exfiltration
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105105
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 12:16 p.m. | 3 hours, 40 minutes ago
Description :CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function in the ait.core.server telemetry and command broker (ait-server) in NASA-AMMOS AIT-Core through 3.1.1 allows an unauthenticated remote attacker with network access to the ZeroMQ message bus to inject spacecraft command data, exfiltrate command and telemetry traffic, inject forged telemetry, or disrupt the command and telemetry bus. The ait-server ZeroMQ broker binds its XSUB and XPUB sockets to all network interfaces by default without authentication or transport security. An attacker able to reach TCP port 5559 can publish messages onto internal topics, including the __commands__ command topic. With the shipped default configuration, command messages are forwarded through command_stream and emitted on the command-uplink UDP path. An attacker able to reach TCP port 5560 can subscribe to command and telemetry traffic on the ground bus. AIT-Core 3.1.2 changes the default ZeroMQ bind addresses to loopback.
Severity: 9.8 | CRITICAL
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105105
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 12:16 p.m. | 3 hours, 40 minutes ago
Description :CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function in the ait.core.server telemetry and command broker (ait-server) in NASA-AMMOS AIT-Core through 3.1.1 allows an unauthenticated remote attacker with network access to the ZeroMQ message bus to inject spacecraft command data, exfiltrate command and telemetry traffic, inject forged telemetry, or disrupt the command and telemetry bus. The ait-server ZeroMQ broker binds its XSUB and XPUB sockets to all network interfaces by default without authentication or transport security. An attacker able to reach TCP port 5559 can publish messages onto internal topics, including the __commands__ command topic. With the shipped default configuration, command messages are forwarded through command_stream and emitted on the command-uplink UDP path. An attacker able to reach TCP port 5560 can subscribe to command and telemetry traffic on the ground bus. AIT-Core 3.1.2 changes the default ZeroMQ bind addresses to loopback.
Severity: 9.8 | CRITICAL
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105112 - Nezha 1.8.0 before 2.3.13 Deadlock DoS via notification-group endpoints
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105112
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :Nezha from 1.8.0 before 2.3.13 contains a lock-order inversion in UpdateGroup and DeleteGroup that allows authenticated non-admin users to deadlock the alerting subsystem. Attackers can concurrently call the notification-group and batch-delete endpoints with oversized id lists to widen the race and close an ABBA cycle, permanently killing alert delivery until restart.
Severity: 6.0 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105112
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :Nezha from 1.8.0 before 2.3.13 contains a lock-order inversion in UpdateGroup and DeleteGroup that allows authenticated non-admin users to deadlock the alerting subsystem. Attackers can concurrently call the notification-group and batch-delete endpoints with oversized id lists to widen the race and close an ABBA cycle, permanently killing alert delivery until restart.
Severity: 6.0 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105113 - Nezha 1.8.0 before 2.3.13 Denial of Service via Notification Mutex Deadlock
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105113
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :Nezha Dashboard from 1.8.0 before 2.3.13 contains an improper locking vulnerability where a non-deferred mutex unlock leaks on a nil-map panic path. Any authenticated non-admin member can issue four notification API calls to permanently deadlock the alerting subsystem, then exhaust memory with blocking requests.
Severity: 7.1 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105113
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :Nezha Dashboard from 1.8.0 before 2.3.13 contains an improper locking vulnerability where a non-deferred mutex unlock leaks on a nil-map panic path. Any authenticated non-admin member can issue four notification API calls to permanently deadlock the alerting subsystem, then exhaust memory with blocking requests.
Severity: 7.1 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105114 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 Reflected XSS via OAuth2 Authorization Error Page
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105114
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains a reflected cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to inject script by supplying crafted parameters rendered unencoded on the OAuth2 authorization error page. Attackers can lure victims to a crafted /oauth2/authorize link with repeated parameters to run JavaScript in the OpenAM origin, acting within existing sessions or redirecting to phishing pages.
Severity: 6.1 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105114
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains a reflected cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to inject script by supplying crafted parameters rendered unencoded on the OAuth2 authorization error page. Attackers can lure victims to a crafted /oauth2/authorize link with repeated parameters to run JavaScript in the OpenAM origin, acting within existing sessions or redirecting to phishing pages.
Severity: 6.1 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105115 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 Unauthenticated Arbitrary Class Instantiation via JAX-RPC Interface
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105115
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an unauthenticated arbitrary class instantiation vulnerability in the legacy JAX-RPC SOAP interface that allows remote attackers to load classes without authentication. Attackers can send SOAP requests to /jaxrpc/* with an unverified session identifier and a chosen class name, crashing the server, probing the classpath, or potentially reaching code execution via gadget chains.
Severity: 8.8 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105115
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an unauthenticated arbitrary class instantiation vulnerability in the legacy JAX-RPC SOAP interface that allows remote attackers to load classes without authentication. Attackers can send SOAP requests to /jaxrpc/* with an unverified session identifier and a chosen class name, crashing the server, probing the classpath, or potentially reaching code execution via gadget chains.
Severity: 8.8 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105116 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 Latent XSS in SAML Load-Balancer Cookie Bounce Page
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105116
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains a latent cross-site scripting defect that places the SAML message, relay state and target URL unencoded into the load-balancer cookie bounce auto-submit page. If reachable with cookieHashRedirectEnabled set, crafted requests could execute script in the OpenAM origin, though an unrelated HTTP 500 failure prevents exploitation in released versions.
Severity: 6.1 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105116
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains a latent cross-site scripting defect that places the SAML message, relay state and target URL unencoded into the load-balancer cookie bounce auto-submit page. If reachable with cookieHashRedirectEnabled set, crafted requests could execute script in the OpenAM origin, though an unrelated HTTP 500 failure prevents exploitation in released versions.
Severity: 6.1 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105117 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 Email Content Injection via Users REST Self-Service Actions
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105117
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an email content injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to control notification email wording via the forgotPassword and register actions on /json/{realm}/users. Attackers can supply subject and message fields to send phishing mail from the organisation's configured From address, or abuse register as a relay to arbitrary recipients.
Severity: 6.1 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105117
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an email content injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to control notification email wording via the forgotPassword and register actions on /json/{realm}/users. Attackers can supply subject and message fields to send phishing mail from the organisation's configured From address, or abuse register as a relay to arbitrary recipients.
Severity: 6.1 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105118 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 Open Redirect via Unverified id_token_hint in endSession
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105118
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an open redirect vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to redirect users by supplying an unverified id_token_hint to the /oauth2/connect/endSession endpoint. Attackers can name any realm client in a forged hint to redirect victims to any registered post-logout URI, enabling phishing that borrows the OpenAM host's trust.
Severity: 4.7 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105118
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an open redirect vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to redirect users by supplying an unverified id_token_hint to the /oauth2/connect/endSession endpoint. Attackers can name any realm client in a forged hint to redirect victims to any registered post-logout URI, enabling phishing that borrows the OpenAM host's trust.
Severity: 4.7 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105119 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 PKCE Enforcement Bypass via OAuth 2.0 Hybrid Flows
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105119
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 applies its OAuth2 Provider PKCE enforcement only to authorization requests whose response_type is exactly code, so codes issued through OpenID Connect hybrid flows (code token, code id_token, code token id_token) carry no bound challenge. An attacker who intercepts such a code can redeem it for a public client's tokens with any non-empty code_verifier.
Severity: 7.6 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105119
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 applies its OAuth2 Provider PKCE enforcement only to authorization requests whose response_type is exactly code, so codes issued through OpenID Connect hybrid flows (code token, code id_token, code token id_token) carry no bound challenge. An attacker who intercepts such a code can redeem it for a public client's tokens with any non-empty code_verifier.
Severity: 7.6 | HIGH
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105120 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 Cross-Realm Session Disclosure via Sessions REST Endpoint
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105120
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in the sessions REST endpoint query operation that allows realm administrators to list sessions of every realm. Attackers holding delegated RealmAdmin privileges can supply a _queryFilter naming another realm to disclose usernames, universal IDs, and session handles across tenant boundaries.
Severity: 6.9 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105120
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in the sessions REST endpoint query operation that allows realm administrators to list sessions of every realm. Attackers holding delegated RealmAdmin privileges can supply a _queryFilter naming another realm to disclose usernames, universal IDs, and session handles across tenant boundaries.
Severity: 6.9 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105121 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 Improper Authorization in Delegated Session-Destroy Realm Scoping
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105121
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an improper authorization vulnerability that allows delegated administrators to destroy sessions outside their realms because realm checks use the requester's realm. Authenticated accounts holding the iplanet-am-session-destroy-sessions attribute can supply a target session identifier or handle to forcibly log out users in any realm.
Severity: 6.9 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105121
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an improper authorization vulnerability that allows delegated administrators to destroy sessions outside their realms because realm checks use the requester's realm. Authenticated accounts holding the iplanet-am-session-destroy-sessions attribute can supply a target session identifier or handle to forcibly log out users in any realm.
Severity: 6.9 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE-2026-105122 - OpenAM before 16.1.3 SSRF via OpenID Connect Client jwks_uri
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105122
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers able to register or modify OAuth 2.0 clients to make OpenAM fetch internal resources via an unvalidated jwks_uri. Attackers can trigger unauthenticated fetches through client-authentication and ID-token validation to probe internal hosts, metadata endpoints or local files, or exhaust request threads for denial of service.
Severity: 5.4 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...
CVE ID :CVE-2026-105122
Published : Oct. 3, 2026, 2:16 p.m. | 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Description :OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers able to register or modify OAuth 2.0 clients to make OpenAM fetch internal resources via an unvalidated jwks_uri. Attackers can trigger unauthenticated fetches through client-authentication and ID-token validation to probe internal hosts, metadata endpoints or local files, or exhaust request threads for denial of service.
Severity: 5.4 | MEDIUM
Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...