FKIE_CVE-2026-75804

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-09-29 16:17 - Updated: 2026-10-08 01:20
Severity
5.3 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Summary
Issue summary: OpenSSL QUIC stack does not enforce connection level flow control for streams. Remote peers may send more bytes as long as they fit within the stream flow control limits. Impact summary: A malicious remote peer may exploit the lack of connection flow control for streams to make the QUIC stack receive ~100MB of memory instead of 768 KiB (default flow control window size). CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling Description: The local QUIC stack advertises two flow control limits to its remote peer: stream flow control limit and connection flow control limit. The remote peer must follow both limits when transmitting stream data. Whenever the local QUIC stack receives a stream frame, it validates that the size of the received stream frame stays within flow control limits. If either limit is exceeded (stream level or connection level), then the QUIC stack must close the connection with a flow control error. The vulnerable OpenSSL QUIC stack enforces the stream-level but not the connection-level limit. To exploit the issue, three conditions must be met: - the remote peer opens several streams - each stream must stay within the stream-level flow control limit - there must be no zero-offset byte sent on any of the streams (to prevent the vulnerable QUIC stack from consuming data). By meeting the conditions above, the remote peer may make the local stack allocate 2 x MAX_STREAMS x (stream flow control limit) bytes of memory. MAX_STREAMS defaults to 100, and the limit applies to both bidirectional and unidirectional streams, making it 200 in total. The default flow control window for a stream is 512kB. The remote peer may force the vulnerable QUIC stack to allocate 100MB of heap per connection. FIPS impact: no The FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC implementation is outside of the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
References
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2e8f54666b3fb7b05ff5f58aa6cac9285163654ePatch
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4533ee8a5686c953ed3b644738ac4bdf20806538Patch
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/64d3102fb5b54311e92517f26ba00169d719e74aPatch
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/f9eaecf5bdd6692da052bc65b0332af2a938ac03Patch
openssl-security@openssl.orghttps://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260929.txtVendor Advisory
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
openssl openssl *
openssl openssl *
openssl openssl *
openssl openssl *
To clipboard 

{
  "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"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org"
    }
  ],
  "configurations": [
    {
      "nodes": [
        {
          "cpeMatch": [
            {
              "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: OpenSSL QUIC stack does not enforce connection\nlevel flow control for streams. Remote peers may send more bytes\nas long as they fit within the stream flow control limits.\n\nImpact summary: A malicious remote peer may exploit the lack of connection\nflow control for streams to make the QUIC stack receive ~100MB of memory\ninstead of 768 KiB (default flow control window size).\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: The local QUIC stack advertises two flow control limits\nto its remote peer: stream flow control limit and connection flow\ncontrol limit. The remote peer must follow both limits when transmitting\nstream data.\n\nWhenever the local QUIC stack receives a stream frame, it validates\nthat the size of the received stream frame stays within flow control limits.\nIf either limit is exceeded (stream level or connection level), then\nthe QUIC stack must close the connection with a flow control error.\n\nThe vulnerable OpenSSL QUIC stack enforces the stream-level but not\nthe connection-level limit. To exploit the issue, three conditions must be met:\n  - the remote peer opens several streams\n  - each stream must stay within the stream-level flow control limit\n  - there must be no zero-offset byte sent on any of the streams\n    (to prevent the vulnerable QUIC stack from consuming data).\nBy meeting the conditions above, the remote peer may make the local stack\nallocate 2 x MAX_STREAMS x (stream flow control limit) bytes\nof memory. MAX_STREAMS defaults to 100, and the limit applies to both\nbidirectional and unidirectional streams, making it 200 in total. The default\nflow control window for a stream is 512kB. The remote peer may\nforce the vulnerable QUIC stack to allocate 100MB of heap per connection.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC implementation is outside of\nthe OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-75804",
  "lastModified": "2026-10-08T01:20:01.250",
  "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-2026-75804",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "none"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "yes"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "partial"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-29T17:15:09.218928Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-09-29T16:17:10.887",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2e8f54666b3fb7b05ff5f58aa6cac9285163654e"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4533ee8a5686c953ed3b644738ac4bdf20806538"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/64d3102fb5b54311e92517f26ba00169d719e74a"
    },
    {
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/f9eaecf5bdd6692da052bc65b0332af2a938ac03"
    },
    {
      "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-770"
        }
      ],
      "source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.

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

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    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.