GHSA-6FMJ-JMJQ-QCMG

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-09 18:30 – Updated: 2026-06-10 09:31
VLAI
Details

Issue summary: When the X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_email is called by an application to validate a crafted e-mail address, such as during S/MIME message validation, an out of bounds read can happen.

Impact summary: This out of bounds read will not directly exfiltrate the data read to the attacker so the most likely result is a crash and a Denial of Service.

An internal helper function called from X509_VERIFY_PARAM_[set|add]_email() used a wrong length when validating the local part of an email address. This could cause the 64 octet limit on the local part of an email address to be not enforced, or cause an out of bound read and potentially a crash.

The bug is reachable via S-MIME validation with a crafted From: address supplied in an email message that can potentially cause a crash.

No FIPS modules are affected by this issue as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-42771"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-125"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-09T17:17:08Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Issue summary: When the X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_email is called by an\napplication to validate a crafted e-mail address, such as during S/MIME\nmessage validation, an out of bounds read can happen.\n\nImpact summary: This out of bounds read will not directly exfiltrate\nthe data read to the attacker so the most likely result is a crash and\na Denial of Service.\n\nAn internal helper function called from X509_VERIFY_PARAM_[set|add]_email()\nused a wrong length when validating the local part of an email address.\nThis could cause the 64 octet limit on the local part of an email address\nto be not enforced, or cause an out of bound read and potentially a crash.\n\nThe bug is reachable via S-MIME validation with a crafted From: address\nsupplied in an email message that can potentially cause a crash.\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue as the affected code is outside\nthe OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.",
  "id": "GHSA-6fmj-jmjq-qcmg",
  "modified": "2026-06-10T09:31:57Z",
  "published": "2026-06-09T18:30:43Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42771"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6cd187689f8180c1f8a3acde21f88190c4a20de7"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/security/commit/6cd187689f8180c1f8a3acde21f88190c4a20de7"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

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.

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.

Events included in the timeline

Loading timeline…


    Loading…

    Loading…

    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.