CVE-2026-75805 (GCVE-0-2026-75805)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-29 15:32 – Updated: 2026-09-29 16:54
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
NULL Pointer Dereference in CMP Client Revocation Response Handling
Summary
Issue summary: A CMP client that requests certificate revocation on the basis
of a PKCS#10 CSR may dereference a NULL pointer and terminate abnormally when
processing a crafted revocation response.
Impact summary: The NULL pointer dereference happens on a read which
leads to a crash and a Denial of Service for the affected client application.
CWE: CWE-476: NULL-pointer dereference
Description: A CMP client revoking a certificate has to tell the server which
certificate to revoke, and may do so by supplying a PKCS#10 CSR instead of the
certificate itself or its issuer name and serial number. This is
'openssl cmp -cmd rr -csr <file>' on the command line, or
OSSL_CMP_exec_RR_ses() with the certificate supplied via
OSSL_CMP_CTX_set1_p10CSR() through the API.
A CSR does not contain the issuer name and serial number of the certificate,
so the client does not send them. A server may optionally name the
certificate it revoked in its response, and the client then compares that
name against what it sent. Having sent neither an issuer name nor a serial
number, it has nothing to compare against, and a server returning a specially
crafted name causes the client to read from a NULL pointer and crash.
The revocation response is checked for valid message protection before
the affected code is reached, so an attacker must be a malicious or
compromised CMP server, or a man-in-the-middle in possession of the
secret used for message protection. Clients that identify the certificate
to be revoked by a certificate or by issuer and serial number rather
than by a PKCS#10 CSR are not affected.
FIPS impact: no
No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol
implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-09-29 16:54 UTC
CWE
- CWE-476 - NULL-pointer dereference
Assigner
References
5 references
Impacted products
Date Public
2026-09-29 14:21
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-75805",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-29T16:54:03.315064Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-29T16:54:39.263Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": "OpenSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "4.0.3",
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.6.5",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.6.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.5.9",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.4.8",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.0.23",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Bhabani Sankar Das"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Bhabani Sankar Das"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Norbert Pocs"
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-09-29T14:21:57.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "Issue summary: A CMP client that requests certificate revocation on the basis\u003cbr\u003eof a PKCS#10 CSR may dereference a NULL pointer and terminate abnormally when\u003cbr\u003eprocessing a crafted revocation response. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: The NULL pointer dereference happens on a read which \u003cbr\u003eleads to a crash and a Denial of Service for the affected client application.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-476: NULL-pointer dereference\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: A CMP client revoking a certificate has to tell the server which\u003cbr\u003ecertificate to revoke, and may do so by supplying a PKCS#10 CSR instead of the\u003cbr\u003ecertificate itself or its issuer name and serial number. This is\u003cbr\u003e\u0027openssl cmp -cmd rr -csr \u003cfile\u003e\u0027 on the command line, or\u003cbr\u003eOSSL_CMP_exec_RR_ses() with the certificate supplied via\u003cbr\u003eOSSL_CMP_CTX_set1_p10CSR() through the API.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eA CSR does not contain the issuer name and serial number of the certificate,\u003cbr\u003eso the client does not send them. A server may optionally name the\u003cbr\u003ecertificate it revoked in its response, and the client then compares that\u003cbr\u003ename against what it sent. Having sent neither an issuer name nor a serial\u003cbr\u003enumber, it has nothing to compare against, and a server returning a specially\u003cbr\u003ecrafted name causes the client to read from a NULL pointer and crash.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe revocation response is checked for valid message protection before\u003cbr\u003ethe affected code is reached, so an attacker must be a malicious or\u003cbr\u003ecompromised CMP server, or a man-in-the-middle in possession of the\u003cbr\u003esecret used for message protection. Clients that identify the certificate\u003cbr\u003eto be revoked by a certificate or by issuer and serial number rather\u003cbr\u003ethan by a PKCS#10 CSR are not affected.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003eNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol\u003cbr\u003eimplementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
}
],
"value": "Issue summary: A CMP client that requests certificate revocation on the basis\nof a PKCS#10 CSR may dereference a NULL pointer and terminate abnormally when\nprocessing a crafted revocation response. \n\nImpact summary: The NULL pointer dereference happens on a read which \nleads to a crash and a Denial of Service for the affected client application.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL-pointer dereference\n\nDescription: A CMP client revoking a certificate has to tell the server which\ncertificate to revoke, and may do so by supplying a PKCS#10 CSR instead of the\ncertificate itself or its issuer name and serial number. This is\n\u0027openssl cmp -cmd rr -csr \u003cfile\u003e\u0027 on the command line, or\nOSSL_CMP_exec_RR_ses() with the certificate supplied via\nOSSL_CMP_CTX_set1_p10CSR() through the API.\n\nA CSR does not contain the issuer name and serial number of the certificate,\nso the client does not send them. A server may optionally name the\ncertificate it revoked in its response, and the client then compares that\nname against what it sent. Having sent neither an issuer name nor a serial\nnumber, it has nothing to compare against, and a server returning a specially\ncrafted name causes the client to read from a NULL pointer and crash.\n\nThe revocation response is checked for valid message protection before\nthe affected code is reached, so an attacker must be a malicious or\ncompromised CMP server, or a man-in-the-middle in possession of the\nsecret used for message protection. Clients that identify the certificate\nto be revoked by a certificate or by issuer and serial number rather\nthan by a PKCS#10 CSR are not affected.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol\nimplementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"format": "other",
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "Low"
},
"type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-476",
"description": "CWE-476 NULL-pointer dereference",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-29T15:32:20.408Z",
"orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
"shortName": "openssl"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260929.txt"
},
{
"name": "4.0.3 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7ca0ccb5172a577e9b87267d77bfe21e5481a5e7"
},
{
"name": "3.6.5 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7588db7fef14209c3caa3a101d11a02006b19166"
},
{
"name": "3.5.9 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9eb2a8a9b86136cdb39d6d7d50644dd66941cdc3"
},
{
"name": "3.4.8 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/abf02872a4b71767ecc72293424420f5b009190f"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "NULL Pointer Dereference in CMP Client Revocation Response Handling",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
"assignerShortName": "openssl",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-75805",
"datePublished": "2026-09-29T15:32:20.408Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-08-18T09:34:32.659Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-29T16:54:39.263Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"nvd": {
"cve": {
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": "OpenSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "4.0.3",
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.6.5",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.6.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.5.9",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.4.8",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.0.23",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org"
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Issue summary: A CMP client that requests certificate revocation on the basis\nof a PKCS#10 CSR may dereference a NULL pointer and terminate abnormally when\nprocessing a crafted revocation response. \n\nImpact summary: The NULL pointer dereference happens on a read which \nleads to a crash and a Denial of Service for the affected client application.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL-pointer dereference\n\nDescription: A CMP client revoking a certificate has to tell the server which\ncertificate to revoke, and may do so by supplying a PKCS#10 CSR instead of the\ncertificate itself or its issuer name and serial number. This is\n\u0027openssl cmp -cmd rr -csr \u003cfile\u003e\u0027 on the command line, or\nOSSL_CMP_exec_RR_ses() with the certificate supplied via\nOSSL_CMP_CTX_set1_p10CSR() through the API.\n\nA CSR does not contain the issuer name and serial number of the certificate,\nso the client does not send them. A server may optionally name the\ncertificate it revoked in its response, and the client then compares that\nname against what it sent. Having sent neither an issuer name nor a serial\nnumber, it has nothing to compare against, and a server returning a specially\ncrafted name causes the client to read from a NULL pointer and crash.\n\nThe revocation response is checked for valid message protection before\nthe affected code is reached, so an attacker must be a malicious or\ncompromised CMP server, or a man-in-the-middle in possession of the\nsecret used for message protection. Clients that identify the certificate\nto be revoked by a certificate or by issuer and serial number rather\nthan by a PKCS#10 CSR are not affected.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol\nimplementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-75805",
"lastModified": "2026-09-29T21:27:41.130",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 1.4,
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-75805",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "yes"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-29T16:54:03.315064Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2026-09-29T16:17:11.063",
"references": [
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7588db7fef14209c3caa3a101d11a02006b19166"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7ca0ccb5172a577e9b87267d77bfe21e5481a5e7"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9eb2a8a9b86136cdb39d6d7d50644dd66941cdc3"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/abf02872a4b71767ecc72293424420f5b009190f"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260929.txt"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-476"
}
],
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
},
"redhat_vex": {
"aggregate_severity": "Moderate",
"current_release_date": "2026-09-29T23:07:35+00:00",
"cve": "CVE-2026-75805",
"id": "CVE-2026-75805",
"initial_release_date": "2026-09-29T15:32:20.408000+00:00",
"product_status:known_affected": "88",
"product_status:known_not_affected": "1",
"source": "Red Hat CSAF VEX",
"status": "final",
"title": "openssl: openssl: Denial of Service via crafted CMP certificate revocation response",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-75805.json",
"version": "3"
},
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-75805",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-29T16:54:03.315064Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-29T16:54:26.744Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": "OpenSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "4.0.3",
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.6.5",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.6.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.5.9",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.4.8",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.0.23",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Bhabani Sankar Das"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Bhabani Sankar Das"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Norbert Pocs"
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-09-29T14:21:57.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "Issue summary: A CMP client that requests certificate revocation on the basis\u003cbr\u003eof a PKCS#10 CSR may dereference a NULL pointer and terminate abnormally when\u003cbr\u003eprocessing a crafted revocation response. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: The NULL pointer dereference happens on a read which \u003cbr\u003eleads to a crash and a Denial of Service for the affected client application.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-476: NULL-pointer dereference\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: A CMP client revoking a certificate has to tell the server which\u003cbr\u003ecertificate to revoke, and may do so by supplying a PKCS#10 CSR instead of the\u003cbr\u003ecertificate itself or its issuer name and serial number. This is\u003cbr\u003e\u0027openssl cmp -cmd rr -csr \u003cfile\u003e\u0027 on the command line, or\u003cbr\u003eOSSL_CMP_exec_RR_ses() with the certificate supplied via\u003cbr\u003eOSSL_CMP_CTX_set1_p10CSR() through the API.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eA CSR does not contain the issuer name and serial number of the certificate,\u003cbr\u003eso the client does not send them. A server may optionally name the\u003cbr\u003ecertificate it revoked in its response, and the client then compares that\u003cbr\u003ename against what it sent. Having sent neither an issuer name nor a serial\u003cbr\u003enumber, it has nothing to compare against, and a server returning a specially\u003cbr\u003ecrafted name causes the client to read from a NULL pointer and crash.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe revocation response is checked for valid message protection before\u003cbr\u003ethe affected code is reached, so an attacker must be a malicious or\u003cbr\u003ecompromised CMP server, or a man-in-the-middle in possession of the\u003cbr\u003esecret used for message protection. Clients that identify the certificate\u003cbr\u003eto be revoked by a certificate or by issuer and serial number rather\u003cbr\u003ethan by a PKCS#10 CSR are not affected.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003eNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol\u003cbr\u003eimplementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
}
],
"value": "Issue summary: A CMP client that requests certificate revocation on the basis\nof a PKCS#10 CSR may dereference a NULL pointer and terminate abnormally when\nprocessing a crafted revocation response. \n\nImpact summary: The NULL pointer dereference happens on a read which \nleads to a crash and a Denial of Service for the affected client application.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL-pointer dereference\n\nDescription: A CMP client revoking a certificate has to tell the server which\ncertificate to revoke, and may do so by supplying a PKCS#10 CSR instead of the\ncertificate itself or its issuer name and serial number. This is\n\u0027openssl cmp -cmd rr -csr \u003cfile\u003e\u0027 on the command line, or\nOSSL_CMP_exec_RR_ses() with the certificate supplied via\nOSSL_CMP_CTX_set1_p10CSR() through the API.\n\nA CSR does not contain the issuer name and serial number of the certificate,\nso the client does not send them. A server may optionally name the\ncertificate it revoked in its response, and the client then compares that\nname against what it sent. Having sent neither an issuer name nor a serial\nnumber, it has nothing to compare against, and a server returning a specially\ncrafted name causes the client to read from a NULL pointer and crash.\n\nThe revocation response is checked for valid message protection before\nthe affected code is reached, so an attacker must be a malicious or\ncompromised CMP server, or a man-in-the-middle in possession of the\nsecret used for message protection. Clients that identify the certificate\nto be revoked by a certificate or by issuer and serial number rather\nthan by a PKCS#10 CSR are not affected.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol\nimplementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"format": "other",
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "Low"
},
"type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-476",
"description": "CWE-476 NULL-pointer dereference",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-29T15:32:20.408Z",
"orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
"shortName": "openssl"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260929.txt"
},
{
"name": "4.0.3 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7ca0ccb5172a577e9b87267d77bfe21e5481a5e7"
},
{
"name": "3.6.5 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7588db7fef14209c3caa3a101d11a02006b19166"
},
{
"name": "3.5.9 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9eb2a8a9b86136cdb39d6d7d50644dd66941cdc3"
},
{
"name": "3.4.8 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/abf02872a4b71767ecc72293424420f5b009190f"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "NULL Pointer Dereference in CMP Client Revocation Response Handling",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
"assignerShortName": "openssl",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-75805",
"datePublished": "2026-09-29T15:32:20.408Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-08-18T09:34:32.659Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-29T16:54:39.263Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
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…