<?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>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 22:20:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-34182 — CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2026-34182</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; OpenSSL&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform
sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of
AuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve
key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity
validation for a given message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing
AuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL
erroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the
message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData
addressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left
byte-for-byte intact, so the victim&amp;#39;s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK
(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB
(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an
attacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the
real CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator
showing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the
attacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the
CEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag len…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; OpenSSL&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform
sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of
AuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve
key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity
validation for a given message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing
AuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL
erroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the
message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData
addressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left
byte-for-byte intact, so the victim&amp;#39;s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK
(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB
(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an
attacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the
real CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator
showing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the
attacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the
CEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag len…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2026-34182</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>USN-8414-1 — openssl vulnerabilities</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/usn-8414-1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: openssl, Ubuntu:24.04:LTS: openssl, Ubuntu:25.10: openssl, Ubuntu:26.04:LTS: openssl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Frank Buss discovered that OpenSSL had a heap buffer over-read in ASN.1
content parsing. An attacker could possibly use this issue to cause OpenSSL
to crash, resulting in a denial of service, or obtain sensitive
information. (CVE-2026-34180)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pavol Zacik and Alex Gaynor discovered that OpenSSL incorrectly accepted
PKCS#12 files with short HMAC keys when using PBMAC1. An attacker could
possibly use this issue to bypass integrity checks. This issue only
affected Ubuntu 25.10 and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-34181)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Asim Viladi Oglu Manizada and Alex Gaynor discovered that OpenSSL could
accept forged CMS AuthEnvelopedData messages. An attacker could possibly
use this issue to bypass message authentication checks. (CVE-2026-34182)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Abhinav Agarwal discovered that OpenSSL had unbounded memory growth in the
QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE handler. A remote attacker could possibly use this
issue to cause OpenSSL to use excessive resources, leading to a denial of
service. This issue only affected Ubuntu 25.10 and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.
(CVE-2026-34183)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sunwoo Lee, Hyuk Lim, and Seunghyun Yoon discovered that OpenSSL had a NULL
pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling. A remote
attacker could possibly use this issue to cause OpenSSL to crash, resulting
in a denial of service. This issue only affected Ubuntu 25.10 and Ubuntu
26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-42764)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mayank Jangid, Kushal Khemka, Hari Priandana, Bhabani Sankar Das, and Qifan
Zhang discovered that OpenSSL had a possible NULL derefe…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: openssl, Ubuntu:24.04:LTS: openssl, Ubuntu:25.10: openssl, Ubuntu:26.04:LTS: openssl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Frank Buss discovered that OpenSSL had a heap buffer over-read in ASN.1
content parsing. An attacker could possibly use this issue to cause OpenSSL
to crash, resulting in a denial of service, or obtain sensitive
information. (CVE-2026-34180)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pavol Zacik and Alex Gaynor discovered that OpenSSL incorrectly accepted
PKCS#12 files with short HMAC keys when using PBMAC1. An attacker could
possibly use this issue to bypass integrity checks. This issue only
affected Ubuntu 25.10 and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-34181)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Asim Viladi Oglu Manizada and Alex Gaynor discovered that OpenSSL could
accept forged CMS AuthEnvelopedData messages. An attacker could possibly
use this issue to bypass message authentication checks. (CVE-2026-34182)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Abhinav Agarwal discovered that OpenSSL had unbounded memory growth in the
QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE handler. A remote attacker could possibly use this
issue to cause OpenSSL to use excessive resources, leading to a denial of
service. This issue only affected Ubuntu 25.10 and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.
(CVE-2026-34183)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sunwoo Lee, Hyuk Lim, and Seunghyun Yoon discovered that OpenSSL had a NULL
pointer dereference in QUIC server initial packet handling. A remote
attacker could possibly use this issue to cause OpenSSL to crash, resulting
in a denial of service. This issue only affected Ubuntu 25.10 and Ubuntu
26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-42764)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mayank Jangid, Kushal Khemka, Hari Priandana, Bhabani Sankar Das, and Qifan
Zhang discovered that OpenSSL had a possible NULL derefe…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/usn-8414-1</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
