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": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2026-75805",
"date": "2026-10-21",
"epss": "0.00222",
"percentile": "0.12044"
},
"microsoft_vex": {
"current_release_date": "2026-10-16T01:46:44.000Z",
"cve": "CVE-2026-75805",
"id": "msrc_CVE-2026-75805",
"initial_release_date": "2026-10-03T01:11:36.000Z",
"product_status:fixed": "2",
"product_status:known_affected": "2",
"product_status:known_not_affected": "6",
"source": "Microsoft CSAF VEX",
"status": "final",
"title": "NULL Pointer Dereference in CMP Client Revocation Response Handling",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/csaf/vex/2026/msrc_cve-2026-75805.json",
"version": "5"
},
"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"
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "C9AFA409-BE77-40FB-8191-3405AC8F52C0",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.0.23",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.0.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "707E1EC7-0538-4F9F-96CB-C89FECC1F3ED",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.4.8",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.4.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "B822E02B-8728-4C34-98BC-52D0A0A735B3",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.5.9",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.5.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "96C892B6-618B-4CB9-85B6-76C641D17532",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.6.5",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.6.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "BC4A99CC-483D-4C81-A95F-6AEB2BF1B500",
"versionEndExcluding": "4.0.3",
"versionStartIncluding": "4.0.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"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": "2026-10-08T01:20:24.147",
"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",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7588db7fef14209c3caa3a101d11a02006b19166"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7ca0ccb5172a577e9b87267d77bfe21e5481a5e7"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9eb2a8a9b86136cdb39d6d7d50644dd66941cdc3"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/abf02872a4b71767ecc72293424420f5b009190f"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260929.txt"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-476"
}
],
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
},
"redhat_vex": {
"aggregate_severity": "Moderate",
"current_release_date": "2026-10-21T08:00:53+00:00",
"cve": "CVE-2026-75805",
"id": "CVE-2026-75805",
"initial_release_date": "2026-09-29T15:32:20.408000+00:00",
"product_status:fixed": "22",
"product_status:known_affected": "30",
"product_status:known_not_affected": "58",
"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"
},
"suse_vex": {
"aggregate_severity": "moderate",
"current_release_date": "2026-10-20T23:57:21Z",
"cve": "CVE-2026-75805",
"id": "CVE-2026-75805",
"initial_release_date": "2026-10-02T16:48:56Z",
"product_status:known_affected": "441",
"product_status:known_not_affected": "391",
"product_status:recommended": "94",
"source": "SUSE CSAF VEX",
"status": "interim",
"title": "SUSE CVE CVE-2026-75805",
"url": "https://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/security/csaf-vex/2026/cve-2026-75805.json",
"version": "8"
},
"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…
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
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.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
Loading timeline…
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.