FKIE_CVE-2026-63073

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-08-25 13:19 - Updated: 2026-08-25 13:19
Severity
Summary
Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP response validation passed an unexpected response sender distinguished name directly as the format string to `ERR_raise_data()`. Impact summary: A malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint can crash a CMP client that enforces an expected sender or uses a pinned server certificate whose subject becomes the default expected sender. CWE: CWE-134 (Use of Externally-Controlled Format String) Description: When validating a received CMP message, ossl_cmp_msg_check_update() converts the peer-supplied sender distinguished name with X509_NAME_oneline() and passes it directly as the format argument to ERR_raise_data(). Percent characters survive the conversion, so a sender DN such as "CN=%s%n" reaches BIO_vsnprintf() as an attacker-controlled format string with no matching variadic arguments. This path is only reached when the caller configures an expected sender or pins a server certificate, which is the normal configuration for a CMP client validating server responses. Since the attacker controls the format string but none of the variadic arguments, such specifiers as %s and %n dereference or write through unrelated stack contents and crash the client. The reliable consequence is a denial of service, when the response comes from a malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint. There is no controlled memory write, arbitrary-address read, or reliable path to remote code execution. FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "OpenSSL",
          "vendor": "OpenSSL",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "4.0.2",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "4.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.6.4",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.6.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.5.8",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.5.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.4.7",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.4.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org"
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP response validation passed an unexpected response\nsender distinguished name directly as the format string to `ERR_raise_data()`.\n\nImpact summary: A malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint can crash a CMP client\nthat enforces an expected sender or uses a pinned server certificate whose\nsubject becomes the default expected sender.\n\nCWE: CWE-134 (Use of Externally-Controlled Format String)\n\nDescription: When validating a received CMP message, ossl_cmp_msg_check_update()\nconverts the peer-supplied sender distinguished name with X509_NAME_oneline()\nand passes it directly as the format argument to ERR_raise_data(). Percent\ncharacters survive the conversion, so a sender DN such as \"CN=%s%n\" reaches\nBIO_vsnprintf() as an attacker-controlled format string with no matching variadic\narguments. This path is only reached when the caller configures an expected\nsender or pins a server certificate, which is the normal configuration for a\nCMP client validating server responses.\n\nSince the attacker controls the format string but none of the variadic\narguments, such specifiers as %s and %n dereference or write through unrelated\nstack contents and crash the client. The reliable consequence is a denial of\nservice, when the response comes from a malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint.\nThere is no controlled memory write, arbitrary-address read, or reliable path\nto remote code execution.\n\nFIPS impact: no\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol\nimplementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-63073",
  "lastModified": "2026-08-25T13:19:26.147",
  "metrics": {},
  "published": "2026-08-25T13:19:26.147",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/0cc20b322639919aa423e90799d9a57c3b4b76ca"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6a0acc072b4d37a7cac1252a29c1ce1f00c5ec29"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7eb2e3ec9d1d4f35c8022fccd4b03398b3f33e21"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/a7e5a6eea8fd3ccca6b6fbba031a5fbf8a3d93b4"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
  "vulnStatus": "Received",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-134"
        }
      ],
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

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…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…