@@ -28,6 +28,303 @@ OpenSSL Releases
2828OpenSSL 3.5
2929-----------
3030
31+ ### Changes between 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 [9 Jun 2026]
32+
33+ * Fixed heap use-after-free in `PKCS7_verify()`.
34+
35+ Severity: High
36+
37+ Issue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could
38+ trigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification.
39+
40+ Impact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap
41+ corruption, or, potentially, remote code execution.
42+
43+ Reported by: Thai Duong (Calif.io in collaboration with Claude
44+ and Anthropic Research).
45+
46+ ([CVE-2026-45447])
47+
48+ *Igor Ustinov*
49+
50+ * Fixed CMS `AuthEnvelopedData` processing may accept forged messages.
51+
52+ Severity: Moderate
53+
54+ Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails
55+ to perform sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields
56+ of `AuthEnvelopedData` containers, leading to various potential compromises.
57+
58+ Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve
59+ key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass
60+ integrity validation for a given message.
61+
62+ Reported by: Asim Viladi Oglu Manizada, Alex Gaynor (Anthropic),
63+ Ying Dong, and Haiyang Huang.
64+
65+ ([CVE-2026-34182])
66+
67+ *Neil Horman*
68+
69+ * Fixed unbounded memory growth in the QUIC `PATH_CHALLENGE` handler.
70+
71+ Severity: Moderate
72+
73+ Issue summary: Remote peer may exhaust heap memory of the QUIC server
74+ or client by flooding it with packets containing `PATH_CHALLENGE` frames.
75+
76+ Impact summary: A malicious remote peer can cause an unbounded memory
77+ allocation which can lead to an abnormal termination of the application
78+ acting as a QUIC client or server and a Denial of Service.
79+
80+ Reported by: Abhinav Agarwal.
81+
82+ ([CVE-2026-34183])
83+
84+ *Abhinav Agarwal and Alexandr Nedvedicky*
85+
86+ * Fixed NULL pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling.
87+
88+ Severity: Moderate
89+
90+ Issue summary: Receiving a QUIC initial packet with an invalid token
91+ may trigger a NULL pointer dereference in the OpenSSL QUIC server
92+ with address validation disabled.
93+
94+ Impact summary: NULL pointer dereference typically causes abnormal
95+ termination of the affected QUIC server process and a Denial of Service.
96+
97+ Reported by: Sunwoo Lee (KENTECH), Hyuk Lim (KENTECH),
98+ and Seunghyun Yoon (KENTECH).
99+
100+ ([CVE-2026-42764])
101+
102+ *Sunwoo Lee (KENTECH), Hyuk Lim (KENTECH), and Seunghyun Yoon (KENTECH)*
103+
104+ * Fixed AES-OCB IV ignored on `EVP_Cipher()` path.
105+
106+ Severity: Moderate
107+
108+ Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through
109+ the public `EVP_Cipher()` one-shot interface, the application-supplied
110+ initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded.
111+
112+ Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the same
113+ effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller, resulting
114+ in `(key, nonce)` reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the same code path
115+ is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag depends only
116+ on the `(key, IV)` pair and not on the plaintext or ciphertext, allowing
117+ universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a single captured message.
118+
119+ Reported by: Alex Gaynor (Anthropic).
120+
121+ ([CVE-2026-45445])
122+
123+ *Viktor Dukhovni*
124+
125+ * Fixed possible heap buffer overflow in ASN.1 multibyte string conversion.
126+
127+ Severity: Low
128+
129+ Issue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination
130+ buffer for Unicode output in `ASN1_mbstring_ncopy()` can lead to a heap
131+ buffer overflow.
132+
133+ Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly
134+ attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour.
135+
136+ Reported by: Zehua Qiao and Jinwen He.
137+
138+ ([CVE-2026-7383])
139+
140+ *Viktor Dukhovni*
141+
142+ * Fixed out-of-bounds read in CMS password-based decryption.
143+
144+ Severity: Low
145+
146+ Issue summary: When CMS password-based decryption ([RFC 3211]/PWRI key
147+ unwrap) processes attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode
148+ KEK cipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in `kek_unwrap_key()`.
149+
150+ Impact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash, which leads
151+ to Denial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory
152+ page boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information
153+ disclosure, as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker.
154+
155+ Reported by: Bhabani Sankar Das and Haruki Oyama (Waseda University).
156+
157+ ([CVE-2026-9076])
158+
159+ *Nikola Pajkovský*
160+
161+ * Fixed heap buffer over-read in ASN.1 content parsing.
162+
163+ Severity: Low
164+
165+ Issue summary: Parsing a crafted DER-encoded ASN.1 structure with a primitive
166+ element whose content exceeds 2 gigabytes in length may cause a heap buffer
167+ over-read on 64-bit Unix and Unix-like platforms.
168+
169+ Impact summary: The heap buffer over-read may crash the application (Denial
170+ of Service) or to load into the decoded ASN.1 object contents of memory
171+ beyond the end of the input buffer. More typically, such ASN.1 elements
172+ would instead be truncated.
173+
174+ Reported by: Frank Buss.
175+
176+ ([CVE-2026-34180])
177+
178+ *Viktor Dukhovni*
179+
180+ * Fixed PKCS#12 files with PBMAC1 are accepted with short HMAC keys.
181+
182+ Severity: Low
183+
184+ Issue Summary: The PKCS#12 file processing fails to perform sufficient input
185+ validation for files that use Password-Based Message Authentication Code 1
186+ (PBMAC1) integrity mechanism allowing a certificate and private key forgery.
187+
188+ Impact Summary: An attacker impersonating a user can cause a service reading
189+ PKCS#12 files to accept forged certificates and private keys with a 1 in 256
190+ probability.
191+
192+ Reported by: Pavol Žáčik (Red Hat) and Alex Gaynor (Anthropic).
193+
194+ ([CVE-2026-34181])
195+
196+ *Alicja Kario (Red Hat)*
197+
198+ * Fixed possible NULL dereference in password-dased CMS decryption.
199+
200+ Severity: Low
201+
202+ Issue summary: A specially crafted password-encrypted CMS message
203+ could trigger a NULL pointer dereference during CMS decryption.
204+
205+ Impact summary: This NULL pointer dereference could lead to an application
206+ crash and a Denial of Service.
207+
208+ Reported by: Mayank Jangid, Kushal Khemka, Hari Priandana,
209+ Bhabani Sankar Das, and Qifan Zhang (Palo Alto Networks).
210+
211+ ([CVE-2026-42766])
212+
213+ *Igor Ustinov*
214+
215+ * Fixed NULL pointer dereference in CRMF `EncryptedValue` decryption.
216+
217+ Severity: Low
218+
219+ Issue summary: An attacker-controlled CMP (Certificate Management Protocol)
220+ server could trigger a NULL pointer dereference in a CMP client application.
221+
222+ Impact summary: A NULL pointer dereference could cause a crash
223+ of the application and a Denial of Service.
224+
225+ Reported by: Zhanpeng Liu (Tencent Xuanwu Lab),
226+ Guannan Wang (Tencent Xuanwu Lab), and Guancheng Li (Tencent Xuanwu Lab).
227+
228+ ([CVE-2026-42767])
229+
230+ *Igor Ustinov*
231+
232+ * Fixed multi-`RecipientInfo` Bleichenbacher Oracle in `CMS_decrypt()`
233+ and `PKCS7_decrypt()`.
234+
235+ Severity: Low
236+
237+ Issue summary: The `CMS_decrypt()` and `PKCS7_decrypt()` functions
238+ are vulnerable to Bleichenbacher-style attack when an attacker is able
239+ to provide CMS or S/MIME messages and observe the error code
240+ and/or decryption output.
241+
242+ Impact summary: The Bleichenbacher-style attack allows an attacker to use
243+ the victim's vulnerable application as a way to decrypt or sign messages
244+ with the victim's private RSA key.
245+
246+ Reported by: Alex Gaynor (Anthropic).
247+
248+ ([CVE-2026-42768])
249+
250+ *Dmitry Belyavskiy (Red Hat) and Alicja Kario (Red Hat)*
251+
252+ * Fixed trust anchor substitution via `cert`/`issuer` typo in CMP
253+ `rootCaKeyUpdate`.
254+
255+ Severity: Low
256+
257+ Issue Summary: An error in the callback used to verify the certificate
258+ provided in a Root CA key update Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)
259+ message response rendered the certificate validation ineffectual,
260+ which could lead to escalation of credentials from the Registration
261+ Authority (RA) level to the root Certification Authority (root CA) level.
262+
263+ Impact Summary: The Registration Authority could replace the root CA
264+ certificate for the CMP clients with an arbitrary root CA certificate.
265+
266+ Reported by: Alex Gaynor (Anthropic).
267+
268+ ([CVE-2026-42769])
269+
270+ *Alex Gaynor (Anthropic) and Bob Beck*
271+
272+ * Fixed FFC-DH peer validation uses attacker-supplied `q`.
273+
274+ Severity: Low
275+
276+ Issue summary: When `EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer()` is called with a DHX (X9.42)
277+ peer key, the peer key is not properly checked for the subgroup membership.
278+
279+ Impact summary: A malicious peer which presents an X9.42 key carrying
280+ the victim's `p` and `g` parameters, a forged `q = r` (a small prime factor
281+ of the cofactor `(p − 1)/q_local`), and a public value `Y` of order `r` can
282+ recover the victim's private key after a small number of key exchange
283+ attempts.
284+
285+ Reported by: Alex Gaynor (Anthropic).
286+
287+ ([CVE-2026-42770])
288+
289+ *Alex Gaynor (Anthropic), Viktor Dukhovni, and Norbert Pócs*
290+
291+ * Fixed incorrect tag processing for empty messages in AES-GCM-SIV
292+ and AES-SIV modes.
293+
294+ Severity: Low
295+
296+ Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV ([RFC 5297]) and AES-GCM-SIV
297+ ([RFC 8452]) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated
298+ Data) with an empty ciphertext, allowing forgery of such messages.
299+
300+ Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD
301+ to the victim's application using these ciphers.
302+
303+ Reported by: Alex Gaynor (Anthropic).
304+
305+ ([CVE-2026-45446])
306+
307+ *Dmitry Belyavskiy (Red Hat)*
308+
309+ * Fixed TLS 1.3 server not sending `NewSessionTicket` message
310+ after ciphersuite mismatch.
311+ <!-- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/30626 -->
312+
313+ *Daniel Kubec*
314+
315+ * Implemented validation of the minimal length of PSK identity
316+ being of at least one byte long, as required per [RFC 8446].
317+ <!-- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/31058 -->
318+
319+ *Matt Caswell*
320+
321+ * Fixed usage of stale application buffer pointer by kTLS implementation
322+ after incomplete writes when `SSL_MODE_ACCEPT_MOVING_WRITE_BUFFER` is set,
323+ that led to invalid memory reads and sending of incorrect data.
324+ <!-- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/31146 -->
325+
326+ *Ilya Maximets*
327+
31328### Changes between 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 [7 Apr 2026]
32329
33330 * Fixed incorrect failure handling in RSA KEM RSASVE encapsulation.
@@ -21961,6 +22258,8 @@ ndif
2196122258[CVE-2025-69420]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2025-69420
2196222259[CVE-2025-69421]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2025-69421
2196322260[CVE-2026-2673]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-2673
22261+ [CVE-2026-7383]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-7383
22262+ [CVE-2026-9076]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-9076
2196422263[CVE-2026-22795]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-22795
2196522264[CVE-2026-22796]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-22796
2196622265[CVE-2026-28387]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-28387
@@ -21969,5 +22268,22 @@ ndif
2196922268[CVE-2026-28390]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-28390
2197022269[CVE-2026-31789]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-31789
2197122270[CVE-2026-31790]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-31790
22271+ [CVE-2026-34180]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-34180
22272+ [CVE-2026-34181]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-34181
22273+ [CVE-2026-34182]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-34182
22274+ [CVE-2026-34183]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-34183
22275+ [CVE-2026-42764]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-42764
22276+ [CVE-2026-42766]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-42766
22277+ [CVE-2026-42767]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-42767
22278+ [CVE-2026-42768]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-42768
22279+ [CVE-2026-42769]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-42769
22280+ [CVE-2026-42770]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-42770
22281+ [CVE-2026-45445]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-45445
22282+ [CVE-2026-45446]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-45446
22283+ [CVE-2026-45447]: https://openssl-library.org/news/vulnerabilities/#CVE-2026-45447
2197222284[ESV]: https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/entropy-validations
2197322285[RFC 2578 (STD 58), section 3.5]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2578#section-3.5
22286+ [RFC 3211]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3211
22287+ [RFC 5297]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5297
22288+ [RFC 8446]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446
22289+ [RFC 8452]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8452
0 commit comments