Vulnerability-Lookup

GHSA-MWPV-32CF-MJ9V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-10 21:34 – Updated: 2026-11-10 21:34

Details

Impact summary: Data an application intended to authenticate alongside a message is silently left unauthenticated. An attacker can forge the AAD of such a message.

CWE: CWE-325: Missing Cryptographic Step

Description: An application passing AAD in multiple chunks of which some have zero length will have the previous AAD chunks effectively unauthenticated. Also, on context re-initialisation, the AAD was not reset, which meant that any AAD accumulated from the previous context usage were also included in the AAD of the new message.

The fix makes a zero-length AAD update a no-op and clears any accumulated AAD whenever the context is re-initialised with a key or a nonce. A re-initialisation that only changes parameters keeps the AAD.

FIPS impact: no The FIPS modules are not affected, as AES-GCM-SIV is not a FIPS approved algorithm and is implemented only in the default provider, outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-88823"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-325"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-11-10T19:21:34Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "Issue summary: The AES-GCM-SIV implementation treats a zero-length Additional\nAuthenticated Data (AAD) update as a reset of all the AAD supplied so far,\ninstead of leaving the AAD unchanged. An application that supplies its AAD in\nseveral fragments, one of which is empty, therefore produces or verifies\nmessages whose authentication tag does not cover the AAD supplied before\nthe empty fragment.\n\nImpact summary: Data an application intended to authenticate alongside a\nmessage is silently left unauthenticated. An attacker can forge the AAD of such\na message.\n\nCWE: CWE-325: Missing Cryptographic Step\n\nDescription: An application passing AAD in multiple chunks of which some have\nzero length will have the previous AAD chunks effectively unauthenticated. Also,\non context re-initialisation, the AAD was not reset, which meant that any AAD\naccumulated from the previous context usage were also included in the AAD of the\nnew message.\n\nThe fix makes a zero-length AAD update a no-op and clears any accumulated AAD\nwhenever the context is re-initialised with a key or a nonce.\nA re-initialisation that only changes parameters keeps the AAD.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe FIPS modules are not affected, as AES-GCM-SIV is not a FIPS approved\nalgorithm and is implemented only in the default provider, outside the\nOpenSSL FIPS module boundary.",
  "id": "GHSA-mwpv-32cf-mj9v",
  "modified": "2026-11-10T21:34:03Z",
  "published": "2026-11-10T21:34:03Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-88823"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/159e1de0c448d7b9f09ad768c8e141def4aa1eb4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2f5fc833ff9b5bfe00b32f8b5c74f73c5773c682"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6747b1a278816dd7db46438040a70b0b5e5e0a90"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20261110.txt"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

CVE-2026-88823 (GCVE-0-2026-88823)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-11-10 18:15 – Updated: 2026-11-10 18:15

Title

AES-GCM-SIV AAD Forgery After Zero-length Incremental AAD Update

Summary

Issue summary: The AES-GCM-SIV implementation treats a zero-length Additional Authenticated Data (AAD) update as a reset of all the AAD supplied so far, instead of leaving the AAD unchanged. An application that supplies its AAD in several fragments, one of which is empty, therefore produces or verifies messages whose authentication tag does not cover the AAD supplied before the empty fragment. Impact summary: Data an application intended to authenticate alongside a message is silently left unauthenticated. An attacker can forge the AAD of such a message. CWE: CWE-325: Missing Cryptographic Step Description: An application passing AAD in multiple chunks of which some have zero length will have the previous AAD chunks effectively unauthenticated. Also, on context re-initialisation, the AAD was not reset, which meant that any AAD accumulated from the previous context usage were also included in the AAD of the new message. The fix makes a zero-length AAD update a no-op and clears any accumulated AAD whenever the context is re-initialised with a key or a nonce. A re-initialisation that only changes parameters keeps the AAD. FIPS impact: no The FIPS modules are not affected, as AES-GCM-SIV is not a FIPS approved algorithm and is implemented only in the default provider, outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Severity

No CVSS data available.

CWE

CWE-325 - Missing Cryptographic Step

Assigner

openssl CNA under the mitre root

CNA scorecard B 78/100 over 48 records in the last 180 days details

References

4 references

URL	Tags
https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20261110.txt	vendor-advisory
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6747b1a…	patch
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2f5fc83…	patch
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/159e1de…	patch

Impacted products

1 product

Vendor	Product	Version
OpenSSL	OpenSSL	Affected: 4.1.0 , < 4.1.1 (semver) Affected: 4.0.0 , < 4.0.4 (semver) Affected: 3.5.0 , < 3.5.10 (semver)

Date Public

2026-11-10 11:05

Credits

Jérémy Jean (ANSSI) Bhargava Shastry Jonathan Bateman (Rochester Institute of Technology) Daniel Kubec

Show details on NVD website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "containers": {
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "OpenSSL",
          "vendor": "OpenSSL",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "4.1.1",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "4.1.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "4.0.4",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "4.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.5.10",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.5.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "J\u00e9r\u00e9my Jean (ANSSI)"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Bhargava Shastry"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Jonathan Bateman (Rochester Institute of Technology)"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "remediation developer",
          "value": "Daniel Kubec"
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2026-11-10T11:05:35.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "Issue summary: The AES-GCM-SIV implementation treats a zero-length Additional\u003cbr\u003eAuthenticated Data (AAD) update as a reset of all the AAD supplied so far,\u003cbr\u003einstead of leaving the AAD unchanged. An application that supplies its AAD in\u003cbr\u003eseveral fragments, one of which is empty, therefore produces or verifies\u003cbr\u003emessages whose authentication tag does not cover the AAD supplied before\u003cbr\u003ethe empty fragment.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: Data an application intended to authenticate alongside a\u003cbr\u003emessage is silently left unauthenticated. An attacker can forge the AAD of such\u003cbr\u003ea message.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-325: Missing Cryptographic Step\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: An application passing AAD in multiple chunks of which some have\u003cbr\u003ezero length will have the previous AAD chunks effectively unauthenticated. Also,\u003cbr\u003eon context re-initialisation, the AAD was not reset, which meant that any AAD\u003cbr\u003eaccumulated from the previous context usage were also included in the AAD of the\u003cbr\u003enew message.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe fix makes a zero-length AAD update a no-op and clears any accumulated AAD\u003cbr\u003ewhenever the context is re-initialised with a key or a nonce.\u003cbr\u003eA re-initialisation that only changes parameters keeps the AAD.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules are not affected, as AES-GCM-SIV is not a FIPS approved\u003cbr\u003ealgorithm and is implemented only in the default provider, outside the\u003cbr\u003eOpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
            }
          ],
          "value": "Issue summary: The AES-GCM-SIV implementation treats a zero-length Additional\nAuthenticated Data (AAD) update as a reset of all the AAD supplied so far,\ninstead of leaving the AAD unchanged. An application that supplies its AAD in\nseveral fragments, one of which is empty, therefore produces or verifies\nmessages whose authentication tag does not cover the AAD supplied before\nthe empty fragment.\n\nImpact summary: Data an application intended to authenticate alongside a\nmessage is silently left unauthenticated. An attacker can forge the AAD of such\na message.\n\nCWE: CWE-325: Missing Cryptographic Step\n\nDescription: An application passing AAD in multiple chunks of which some have\nzero length will have the previous AAD chunks effectively unauthenticated. Also,\non context re-initialisation, the AAD was not reset, which meant that any AAD\naccumulated from the previous context usage were also included in the AAD of the\nnew message.\n\nThe fix makes a zero-length AAD update a no-op and clears any accumulated AAD\nwhenever the context is re-initialised with a key or a nonce.\nA re-initialisation that only changes parameters keeps the AAD.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe FIPS modules are not affected, as AES-GCM-SIV is not a FIPS approved\nalgorithm and is implemented only in the default provider, outside the\nOpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "format": "other",
          "other": {
            "content": {
              "text": "Low"
            },
            "type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-325",
              "description": "CWE-325 Missing Cryptographic Step",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-11-10T18:15:49.358Z",
        "orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
        "shortName": "openssl"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20261110.txt"
        },
        {
          "name": "4.1.1 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6747b1a278816dd7db46438040a70b0b5e5e0a90"
        },
        {
          "name": "4.0.4 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2f5fc833ff9b5bfe00b32f8b5c74f73c5773c682"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.5.10 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/159e1de0c448d7b9f09ad768c8e141def4aa1eb4"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "AES-GCM-SIV AAD Forgery After Zero-length Incremental AAD Update",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
    "assignerShortName": "openssl",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-88823",
    "datePublished": "2026-11-10T18:15:49.358Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-09-10T09:08:26.966Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-11-10T18:15:49.358Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2"
}

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

Order 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.

Publication & reservation Sightings KEV catalogs Other timestamps

Loading timeline…

The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base model, served locally by ML-Gateway. They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
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.

Action not permitted