FKIE_CVE-2026-63075

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-08-25 13:19 - Updated: 2026-08-25 15:16
Severity
7.5 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Summary
Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly sends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the QUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the connection. Impact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can cause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service through memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent QUIC connections. CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling Description: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet, there is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge that ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL implementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless. In and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and then drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the OpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames), and then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like legitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth on the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service. The fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only packet in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing the ACK-only packet metadata itself. FIPS impact: no The OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is outside the FIPS module boundary.
References
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7308946576b12e64b8be53bcf0a120354b2b42bc
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7c98d79738549df92868e7dd9be4bbf061eed709
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf84721c2548351176e367e6de505792f0118dc6
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/c902e5f16d6a9e130e96d3ca6d8f64d71652e393
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "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: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly\nsends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the\nQUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the\nconnection.\n\nImpact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can\ncause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service\nthrough memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent\nQUIC connections.\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet,\nthere is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge\nthat ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL\nimplementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless.\nIn and of itself that\u0027s ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and\nthen drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the \nOpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames),\nand then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like\nlegitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth\non the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service.\n\nThe fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only\npacket in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing\nthe ACK-only packet metadata itself.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is\noutside the FIPS module boundary."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-63075",
  "lastModified": "2026-08-25T15:16:36.417",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 7.5,
          "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
          "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:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
        "impactScore": 3.6,
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2026-63075",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "none"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "yes"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "partial"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-08-25T14:36:48.832724Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-08-25T13:19:26.413",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7308946576b12e64b8be53bcf0a120354b2b42bc"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7c98d79738549df92868e7dd9be4bbf061eed709"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf84721c2548351176e367e6de505792f0118dc6"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/c902e5f16d6a9e130e96d3ca6d8f64d71652e393"
    },
    {
      "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-770"
        }
      ],
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





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.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.