FKIE_CVE-2026-31790
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-04-07 22:16 - Updated: 2026-04-23 15:39
Severity ?
Summary
Issue summary: Applications using RSASVE key encapsulation to establish
a secret encryption key can send contents of an uninitialized memory buffer to
a malicious peer.
Impact summary: The uninitialized buffer might contain sensitive data from the
previous execution of the application process which leads to sensitive data
leakage to an attacker.
RSA_public_encrypt() returns the number of bytes written on success and -1
on error. The affected code tests only whether the return value is non-zero.
As a result, if RSA encryption fails, encapsulation can still return success to
the caller, set the output lengths, and leave the caller to use the contents of
the ciphertext buffer as if a valid KEM ciphertext had been produced.
If applications use EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() with RSA/RSASVE on an
attacker-supplied invalid RSA public key without first validating that key,
then this may cause stale or uninitialized contents of the caller-provided
ciphertext buffer to be disclosed to the attacker in place of the KEM
ciphertext.
As a workaround calling EVP_PKEY_public_check() or
EVP_PKEY_public_check_quick() before EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() will mitigate
the issue.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.1 and 3.0 are affected by this issue.
References
{
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "B28A8143-89A4-4332-A1F8-A65FB5AA829F",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.0.20",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.0.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "CF303B21-D9BF-461D-B7B0-A3FE1D557A9F",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.3.7",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.3.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "DCCE43D0-8F17-475D-9EE6-842F758A9905",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.4.5",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.4.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "F6BC0271-444D-4597-BF05-DC60034EAA49",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.5.6",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.5.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "4A9E621D-29D8-418A-BF37-BED333C14507",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.6.2",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.6.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Issue summary: Applications using RSASVE key encapsulation to establish\na secret encryption key can send contents of an uninitialized memory buffer to\na malicious peer.\n\nImpact summary: The uninitialized buffer might contain sensitive data from the\nprevious execution of the application process which leads to sensitive data\nleakage to an attacker.\n\nRSA_public_encrypt() returns the number of bytes written on success and -1\non error. The affected code tests only whether the return value is non-zero.\nAs a result, if RSA encryption fails, encapsulation can still return success to\nthe caller, set the output lengths, and leave the caller to use the contents of\nthe ciphertext buffer as if a valid KEM ciphertext had been produced.\n\nIf applications use EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() with RSA/RSASVE on an\nattacker-supplied invalid RSA public key without first validating that key,\nthen this may cause stale or uninitialized contents of the caller-provided\nciphertext buffer to be disclosed to the attacker in place of the KEM\nciphertext.\n\nAs a workaround calling EVP_PKEY_public_check() or\nEVP_PKEY_public_check_quick() before EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() will mitigate\nthe issue.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.1 and 3.0 are affected by this issue."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-31790",
"lastModified": "2026-04-23T15:39:44.033",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 3.6,
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
},
"published": "2026-04-07T22:16:21.770",
"references": [
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/001e01db3e996e13ffc72386fe79d03a6683b5ac"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/abd8b2eec7e3f3fda60ecfb68498b246b52af482"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/b922e24e5b23ffb9cb9e14cadff23d91e9f7e406"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d5f8e71cd0a54e961d0c3b174348f8308486f790"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/eed200f58cd8645ed77e46b7e9f764e284df379e"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260407.txt"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-754"
}
],
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
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…