CVE-2026-71892 (GCVE-0-2026-71892)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-03 08:30 – Updated: 2026-10-03 08:30
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
CMS key-transport recipient key-size validation never runs for RFC 9709 HKDF-derived keys
Summary
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
CWE
- CWE-697 - Incorrect Comparison
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%9… | vendor-advisory |
| https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/be0a7d925… | patch |
Impacted products
2 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. | BC-JAVA |
Affected:
1.78 , < 1.86
(maven)
|
|
| Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. | BC-FJA |
Affected:
2.0.7 , < 2.0.13
(maven)
Affected: 2.1.0 , < 2.1.13 (maven) |
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java/",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"pkix"
],
"packageName": "bcpkix",
"packageURL": "pkg:maven/org.bouncycastle/bcpkix-jdk18on",
"platforms": [
"all"
],
"product": "BC-JAVA",
"programFiles": [
"JceKeyTransRecipient"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java",
"vendor": "Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.86",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.78",
"versionType": "maven"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java-fips/",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "bcpkix-fips",
"packageURL": "pkg:maven/org.bouncycastle/bcpkix-fips",
"platforms": [
"all"
],
"product": "BC-FJA",
"vendor": "Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.0.13",
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.0.7",
"versionType": "maven"
},
{
"lessThan": "2.1.13",
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.1.0",
"versionType": "maven"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Yu Bao from the PayPal Cyber Security Team"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eIn 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\u0027s 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\u0027s 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).\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "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\u0027s 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\u0027s 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)."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6.9,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "AMBER",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-697",
"description": "CWE-697 Incorrect Comparison",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-03T08:30:26.982Z",
"orgId": "91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630",
"shortName": "bcorg"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9071892"
},
{
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/be0a7d925c818ef2f338bcec55178b9b6336dfc3"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "CMS key-transport recipient key-size validation never runs for RFC 9709 HKDF-derived keys",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "bc release-notes template"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630",
"assignerShortName": "bcorg",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-71892",
"datePublished": "2026-10-03T08:30:26.982Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-08-08T00:06:07.401Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-03T08:30:26.982Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2026-71892",
"date": "2026-10-03",
"epss": "0.00173",
"percentile": "0.06073"
},
"nvd": {
"cve": {
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java/",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"pkix"
],
"packageName": "bcpkix",
"packageURL": "pkg:maven/org.bouncycastle/bcpkix-jdk18on",
"platforms": [
"all"
],
"product": "BC-JAVA",
"programFiles": [
"JceKeyTransRecipient"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java",
"vendor": "Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.86",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.78",
"versionType": "maven"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bouncy-castle-java-fips/",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "bcpkix-fips",
"packageURL": "pkg:maven/org.bouncycastle/bcpkix-fips",
"platforms": [
"all"
],
"product": "BC-FJA",
"vendor": "Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.0.13",
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.0.7",
"versionType": "maven"
},
{
"lessThan": "2.1.13",
"status": "affected",
"version": "2.1.0",
"versionType": "maven"
}
]
}
],
"source": "91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630"
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "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\u0027s 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\u0027s 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)."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-71892",
"lastModified": "2026-10-03T09:17:05.913",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV40": [
{
"cvssData": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"baseScore": 6.9,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "AMBER",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"source": "91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
},
"published": "2026-10-03T09:17:05.913",
"references": [
{
"source": "91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/be0a7d925c818ef2f338bcec55178b9b6336dfc3"
},
{
"source": "91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9071892"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630",
"vulnStatus": "Received",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-697"
}
],
"source": "91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.
Loading…