<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2026 10:00:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>bdu:2026-10550</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-10550</link>
      <description>bdu:2026-10550</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-10550</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BELL-CVE-2026-2673</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-2673</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Alpaquita:25: openssl, Alpaquita:stream: openssl, BellSoft Hardened Containers:25: openssl, BellSoft Hardened Containers:stream: openssl&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Alpaquita:25: openssl, Alpaquita:stream: openssl, BellSoft Hardened Containers:25: openssl, BellSoft Hardened Containers:stream: openssl&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-2673</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>certfr-2026-avi-0296 — Une vulnérabilité a été découverte dans OpenSSL. Elle permet à un attaquant de provoquer un problème de sécurité non sp…</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0296</link>
      <description>certfr-2026-avi-0296</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0296</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EUVD-2026-319334</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-319334</link>
      <description>EUVD-2026-319334</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-319334</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>fkie_cve-2026-2673</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-2673</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected
preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes
the default by using the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more
preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group
was not included among the client&amp;#39;s initial predicated keyshares.
This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups,
if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by
the server.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server&amp;#39;s configuration uses the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword to
interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps
adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the
&amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; list to lose its &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39; structure, and all server-supported groups
were treated as a single sufficiently secure &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39;, with the server not
sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple
was mutually supported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported
post-quantum key agreement group, such as &amp;#39;X25519MLKEM768&amp;#39;, if the client&amp;#39;s
configuration results in only &amp;#39;classical&amp;#39; groups (such as &amp;#39;X25519&amp;#39; being the
only ones in the client&amp;#39;s initial keyshare prediction).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS
1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers.  The old syntax had a single…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected
preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes
the default by using the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more
preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group
was not included among the client&amp;#39;s initial predicated keyshares.
This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups,
if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by
the server.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server&amp;#39;s configuration uses the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword to
interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps
adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the
&amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; list to lose its &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39; structure, and all server-supported groups
were treated as a single sufficiently secure &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39;, with the server not
sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple
was mutually supported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported
post-quantum key agreement group, such as &amp;#39;X25519MLKEM768&amp;#39;, if the client&amp;#39;s
configuration results in only &amp;#39;classical&amp;#39; groups (such as &amp;#39;X25519&amp;#39; being the
only ones in the client&amp;#39;s initial keyshare prediction).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS
1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers.  The old syntax had a single…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-2673</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-wj64-gh9j-xm82</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected
preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes
the default by using the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more
preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group
was not included among the client&amp;#39;s initial predicated keyshares.
This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups,
if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by
the server.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server&amp;#39;s configuration uses the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword to
interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps
adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the
&amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; list to lose its &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39; structure, and all server-supported groups
were treated as a single sufficiently secure &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39;, with the server not
sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple
was mutually supported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported
post-quantum key agreement group, such as &amp;#39;X25519MLKEM768&amp;#39;, if the client&amp;#39;s
configuration results in only &amp;#39;classical&amp;#39; groups (such as &amp;#39;X25519&amp;#39; being the
only ones in the client&amp;#39;s initial keyshare prediction).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS
1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers.  The old syntax had a single…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected
preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes
the default by using the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more
preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group
was not included among the client&amp;#39;s initial predicated keyshares.
This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups,
if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by
the server.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server&amp;#39;s configuration uses the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword to
interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps
adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the
&amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; list to lose its &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39; structure, and all server-supported groups
were treated as a single sufficiently secure &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39;, with the server not
sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple
was mutually supported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported
post-quantum key agreement group, such as &amp;#39;X25519MLKEM768&amp;#39;, if the client&amp;#39;s
configuration results in only &amp;#39;classical&amp;#39; groups (such as &amp;#39;X25519&amp;#39; being the
only ones in the client&amp;#39;s initial keyshare prediction).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS
1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers.  The old syntax had a single…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-wj64-gh9j-xm82</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ICSA-26-134-10 — Siemens SIMATIC</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/icsa-26-134-10</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&#13;
&#13;
drm/amd/display: Check link_res-&amp;gt;hpo_dp_link_enc before using it&#13;
&#13;
[WHAT &amp;amp; HOW]&#13;
Functions dp_enable_link_phy and dp_disable_link_phy can pass link_res&#13;
without initializing hpo_dp_link_enc and it is necessary to check for&#13;
null before dereferencing.&#13;
&#13;
This fixes 2 FORWARD_NULL issues reported by Coverity. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;fs: relax assertions on failure to encode file handles&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Encoding file handles is usually performed by a filesystem &amp;gt;encode_fh()
method that may fail for various reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The legacy users of exportfs_encode_fh(), namely, nfsd and
name_to_handle_at(2) syscall are ready to cope with the possibility
of failure to encode a file handle.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are a few other users of exportfs_encode_{fh,fid}() that
currently have a WARN_ON() assertion when -&amp;gt;encode_fh() fails.
Relax those assertions because they are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second linked bug report states commit 16aac5ad1fa9 (&amp;#34;ovl: support
encoding non-decodable file handles&amp;#34;) in v6.6 as the regressing commit,
but this is not accurate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The aforementioned commit only increases the chances of the assertion
and allows triggering the assertion with the reproducer using overlayfs,
inotify and drop_caches.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Triggering this assertion was always possible with other filesystems and
other reasons of -&amp;gt;encode_fh() failures and more particularly, it was
also possible with the exact same reproducer using overlay…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&#13;
&#13;
drm/amd/display: Check link_res-&amp;gt;hpo_dp_link_enc before using it&#13;
&#13;
[WHAT &amp;amp; HOW]&#13;
Functions dp_enable_link_phy and dp_disable_link_phy can pass link_res&#13;
without initializing hpo_dp_link_enc and it is necessary to check for&#13;
null before dereferencing.&#13;
&#13;
This fixes 2 FORWARD_NULL issues reported by Coverity. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;fs: relax assertions on failure to encode file handles&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Encoding file handles is usually performed by a filesystem &amp;gt;encode_fh()
method that may fail for various reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The legacy users of exportfs_encode_fh(), namely, nfsd and
name_to_handle_at(2) syscall are ready to cope with the possibility
of failure to encode a file handle.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are a few other users of exportfs_encode_{fh,fid}() that
currently have a WARN_ON() assertion when -&amp;gt;encode_fh() fails.
Relax those assertions because they are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second linked bug report states commit 16aac5ad1fa9 (&amp;#34;ovl: support
encoding non-decodable file handles&amp;#34;) in v6.6 as the regressing commit,
but this is not accurate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The aforementioned commit only increases the chances of the assertion
and allows triggering the assertion with the reproducer using overlayfs,
inotify and drop_caches.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Triggering this assertion was always possible with other filesystems and
other reasons of -&amp;gt;encode_fh() failures and more particularly, it was
also possible with the exact same reproducer using overlay…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/icsa-26-134-10</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>jvndb-2026-026852</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/jvndb-2026-026852</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Multiple vulnerabilities exist in Hitachi Ops Center Common Services.&#13;
&#13;
CVE-2025-10939, CVE-2025-11537, CVE-2025-11538, CVE-2025-12110, CVE-2025-13467, CVE-2025-13881, CVE-2025-14082, CVE-2025-14083, CVE-2025-14777, CVE-2025-66560, CVE-2026-0707, CVE-2026-0871, CVE-2026-0976, CVE-2026-1035, CVE-2026-1190, CVE-2026-2092, CVE-2026-2575, CVE-2026-2673, CVE-2026-3009, CVE-2026-3121, CVE-2026-3429, CVE-2026-3872, CVE-2026-3911, CVE-2026-4282, CVE-2026-4325, CVE-2026-4634, CVE-2026-22745, CVE-2026-22748, CVE-2026-25854, CVE-2026-40972, CVE-2026-40975&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Multiple vulnerabilities exist in Hitachi Ops Center Common Services.&#13;
&#13;
CVE-2025-10939, CVE-2025-11537, CVE-2025-11538, CVE-2025-12110, CVE-2025-13467, CVE-2025-13881, CVE-2025-14082, CVE-2025-14083, CVE-2025-14777, CVE-2025-66560, CVE-2026-0707, CVE-2026-0871, CVE-2026-0976, CVE-2026-1035, CVE-2026-1190, CVE-2026-2092, CVE-2026-2575, CVE-2026-2673, CVE-2026-3009, CVE-2026-3121, CVE-2026-3429, CVE-2026-3872, CVE-2026-3911, CVE-2026-4282, CVE-2026-4325, CVE-2026-4634, CVE-2026-22745, CVE-2026-22748, CVE-2026-25854, CVE-2026-40972, CVE-2026-40975&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/jvndb-2026-026852</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>msrc_CVE-2026-2673 — OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may choose unexpected key agreement group</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2026-2673</link>
      <description>msrc_CVE-2026-2673</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2026-2673</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NCSC-2026-0147 — Kwetsbaarheden verholpen in Siemens-producten</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ncsc-2026-0147</link>
      <description>NCSC-2026-0147</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ncsc-2026-0147</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>openSUSE-SU-2026:10533-1 — libopenssl-3-devel-3.5.3-4.1 on GA media</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:10533-1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;libopenssl-3-devel-3.5.3-4.1 on GA media&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;libopenssl-3-devel-3.5.3-4.1 on GA media&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:10533-1</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RHSA-2026:39189 — Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat JBoss Web Server 7.0.0 security release</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/rhsa-2026:39189</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;openssl: OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may choose unexpected key agreement group Apache Tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Information disclosure via Padding Oracle vulnerability in EncryptInterceptor Apache Tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data due to EncryptInterceptor bypass tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Denial of Service due to uncontrolled resource allocation tomcat-coyote: Apache Tomcat: HTTP/2 request headers not validated tomcat-coyote: Apache Tomcat: Information disclosure due to HTTP Authentication Header exposure during WebSocket authentication. tomcat-coyote: Apache Tomcat: Authentication bypass via digest authentication tomcat-catalina: Apache Tomcat: Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity in LockOutRealm tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Information disclosure via AJP secret timing discrepancy tomcat-coyote: tomcat: Improper Authorization allows security bypass tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Improper Authorization Allows Security Constraint Bypass&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;openssl: OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may choose unexpected key agreement group Apache Tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Information disclosure via Padding Oracle vulnerability in EncryptInterceptor Apache Tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data due to EncryptInterceptor bypass tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Denial of Service due to uncontrolled resource allocation tomcat-coyote: Apache Tomcat: HTTP/2 request headers not validated tomcat-coyote: Apache Tomcat: Information disclosure due to HTTP Authentication Header exposure during WebSocket authentication. tomcat-coyote: Apache Tomcat: Authentication bypass via digest authentication tomcat-catalina: Apache Tomcat: Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity in LockOutRealm tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Information disclosure via AJP secret timing discrepancy tomcat-coyote: tomcat: Improper Authorization allows security bypass tomcat: Apache Tomcat: Improper Authorization Allows Security Constraint Bypass&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/rhsa-2026:39189</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SSA-032379 — SSA-032379: Multiple Vulnerabilities in SIMATIC CN 4100 Before V5.0</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ssa-032379</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&#13;
&#13;
drm/amd/display: Check link_res-&amp;gt;hpo_dp_link_enc before using it&#13;
&#13;
[WHAT &amp;amp; HOW]&#13;
Functions dp_enable_link_phy and dp_disable_link_phy can pass link_res&#13;
without initializing hpo_dp_link_enc and it is necessary to check for&#13;
null before dereferencing.&#13;
&#13;
This fixes 2 FORWARD_NULL issues reported by Coverity. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;fs: relax assertions on failure to encode file handles&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Encoding file handles is usually performed by a filesystem &amp;gt;encode_fh()
method that may fail for various reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The legacy users of exportfs_encode_fh(), namely, nfsd and
name_to_handle_at(2) syscall are ready to cope with the possibility
of failure to encode a file handle.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are a few other users of exportfs_encode_{fh,fid}() that
currently have a WARN_ON() assertion when -&amp;gt;encode_fh() fails.
Relax those assertions because they are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second linked bug report states commit 16aac5ad1fa9 (&amp;#34;ovl: support
encoding non-decodable file handles&amp;#34;) in v6.6 as the regressing commit,
but this is not accurate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The aforementioned commit only increases the chances of the assertion
and allows triggering the assertion with the reproducer using overlayfs,
inotify and drop_caches.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Triggering this assertion was always possible with other filesystems and
other reasons of -&amp;gt;encode_fh() failures and more particularly, it was
also possible with the exact same reproducer using overlay…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&#13;
&#13;
drm/amd/display: Check link_res-&amp;gt;hpo_dp_link_enc before using it&#13;
&#13;
[WHAT &amp;amp; HOW]&#13;
Functions dp_enable_link_phy and dp_disable_link_phy can pass link_res&#13;
without initializing hpo_dp_link_enc and it is necessary to check for&#13;
null before dereferencing.&#13;
&#13;
This fixes 2 FORWARD_NULL issues reported by Coverity. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;fs: relax assertions on failure to encode file handles&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Encoding file handles is usually performed by a filesystem &amp;gt;encode_fh()
method that may fail for various reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The legacy users of exportfs_encode_fh(), namely, nfsd and
name_to_handle_at(2) syscall are ready to cope with the possibility
of failure to encode a file handle.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are a few other users of exportfs_encode_{fh,fid}() that
currently have a WARN_ON() assertion when -&amp;gt;encode_fh() fails.
Relax those assertions because they are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second linked bug report states commit 16aac5ad1fa9 (&amp;#34;ovl: support
encoding non-decodable file handles&amp;#34;) in v6.6 as the regressing commit,
but this is not accurate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The aforementioned commit only increases the chances of the assertion
and allows triggering the assertion with the reproducer using overlayfs,
inotify and drop_caches.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Triggering this assertion was always possible with other filesystems and
other reasons of -&amp;gt;encode_fh() failures and more particularly, it was
also possible with the exact same reproducer using overlay…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ssa-032379</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SUSE-SU-2026:21107-1 — Security update for openssl-3</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:21107-1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Security update for openssl-3&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Security update for openssl-3&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:21107-1</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2026-2673</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-2673</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:Pro:22.04:LTS: nodejs, Ubuntu:25.10: openssl, Ubuntu:26.04:LTS: openssl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword. Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group was not included among the client&amp;#39;s initial predicated keyshares. This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups, if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by the server. If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server&amp;#39;s configuration uses the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword to interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; list to lose its &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39; structure, and all server-supported groups were treated as a single sufficiently secure &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39;, with the server not sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple was mutually supported. As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported post-quantum key agreement group, such as &amp;#39;X25519MLKEM768&amp;#39;, if the client&amp;#39;s configuration results in only &amp;#39;classical&amp;#39; groups (such as &amp;#39;X25519&amp;#39; being the only ones in the client&amp;#39;s initial keyshare prediction). OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS 1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers.  The old syntax had a single &amp;#39;fl…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:Pro:22.04:LTS: nodejs, Ubuntu:25.10: openssl, Ubuntu:26.04:LTS: openssl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword. Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group was not included among the client&amp;#39;s initial predicated keyshares. This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups, if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by the server. If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server&amp;#39;s configuration uses the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; keyword to interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the &amp;#39;DEFAULT&amp;#39; list to lose its &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39; structure, and all server-supported groups were treated as a single sufficiently secure &amp;#39;tuple&amp;#39;, with the server not sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple was mutually supported. As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported post-quantum key agreement group, such as &amp;#39;X25519MLKEM768&amp;#39;, if the client&amp;#39;s configuration results in only &amp;#39;classical&amp;#39; groups (such as &amp;#39;X25519&amp;#39; being the only ones in the client&amp;#39;s initial keyshare prediction). OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS 1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers.  The old syntax had a single &amp;#39;fl…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-2673</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WID-SEC-W-2026-0729 — OpenSSL: Schwachstelle ermöglicht Umgehen von Sicherheitsvorkehrungen</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-0729</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ein entfernter, authentisierter Angreifer kann eine Schwachstelle in OpenSSL ausnutzen, um Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Ein entfernter, authentisierter Angreifer kann eine Schwachstelle in OpenSSL ausnutzen, um Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-0729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
