GHSA-6W84-HW79-7WGF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-29 18:31 – Updated: 2026-11-10 15:32Issue summary: The DTLS retransmission logic does not correctly handle a handshake message write that is suspended part-way through. The retransmitted message can be read past the message buffer and the retransmission overwrites the internal state the suspended write needs to resume correctly.
Impact summary: The retransmitted message can disclose a heap memory to the peer as plaintext handshake data or cause a crash and a Denial of Service when the read reaches an unmapped memory region.
CWE: CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read
Description: DTLS handshake messages can be written out in multiple fragments, and a write can suspend mid-message (returning WANT_WRITE) if the underlying transport temporarily cannot accept more data. While such a write is suspended, the DTLS retransmission timer may independently fire and ask the retransmission logic to resend an earlier, already-acknowledged-as-sent message from its retransmit queue.
The retransmission logic reused the same internal buffer and position tracking as the message that was still being written, without resetting the position back to the start of the message being retransmitted. As a result the retransmission was read starting from wherever the suspended write had left off, producing a mislabelled message whose body was leftover bytes from the other, larger message still in flight - content that was never meant to be sent at that point, and which could run past the end of the allocated buffer.
Separately, even when the retransmission is positioned correctly, allowing it to run to completion while another write is suspended overwrites the same shared bookkeeping that the suspended write depends on to resume. When the application later resumes the suspended write (via a subsequent SSL_read(), SSL_write(), SSL_accept(), or SSL_connect() call), it finds that bookkeeping in a state inconsistent with the message and aborts the process in a debugging build.
The fix resets the retransmission's read position to the start of the message before resending, and skips retransmission entirely whenever a handshake write is still suspended, deferring to the next call that resumes it instead.
FIPS impact: no The affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-84782"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-125"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-29T16:17:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Issue summary: The DTLS retransmission logic does not correctly handle\na handshake message write that is suspended part-way through.\nThe retransmitted message can be read past the message buffer and\nthe retransmission overwrites the internal state the suspended write\nneeds to resume correctly.\n\nImpact summary: The retransmitted message can disclose a heap memory\nto the peer as plaintext handshake data or cause a crash and a Denial\nof Service when the read reaches an unmapped memory region.\n\nCWE: CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read\n\nDescription: DTLS handshake messages can be written out in multiple\nfragments, and a write can suspend mid-message (returning WANT_WRITE)\nif the underlying transport temporarily cannot accept more data. While\nsuch a write is suspended, the DTLS retransmission timer may\nindependently fire and ask the retransmission logic to resend an\nearlier, already-acknowledged-as-sent message from its retransmit\nqueue.\n\nThe retransmission logic reused the same internal buffer and position\ntracking as the message that was still being written, without\nresetting the position back to the start of the message being\nretransmitted. As a result the retransmission was read starting from\nwherever the suspended write had left off, producing a mislabelled\nmessage whose body was leftover bytes from the other, larger message\nstill in flight - content that was never meant to be sent at that\npoint, and which could run past the end of the allocated buffer.\n\nSeparately, even when the retransmission is positioned correctly,\nallowing it to run to completion while another write is suspended\noverwrites the same shared bookkeeping that the suspended write\ndepends on to resume. When the application later resumes the\nsuspended write (via a subsequent SSL_read(), SSL_write(),\nSSL_accept(), or SSL_connect() call), it finds that bookkeeping in a\nstate inconsistent with the message and aborts the process in\na debugging build.\n\nThe fix resets the retransmission\u0027s read position to the start of the\nmessage before resending, and skips retransmission entirely whenever a\nhandshake write is still suspended, deferring to the next call that\nresumes it instead.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.",
"id": "GHSA-6w84-hw79-7wgf",
"modified": "2026-11-10T15:32:57Z",
"published": "2026-09-29T18:31:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/906cf0ef1c85ca40ce69163e9086d6d3fe292943"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9f6b34422af7eb5dac61322e33dac1ae989fa628"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/a383dafdd754eb5b22bf45e37e1bff9d07277a58"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d951e02ede8f6a6ff8150546db44b34f0518192c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-457936.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260929.txt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.
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
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…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
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.