CVE-2026-14457 (GCVE-0-2026-14457)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2026-08-25 12:58
Modified
2026-08-25 14:13
Severity ?
CWE
  • CWE-476 - NULL Pointer Dereference
Summary
Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally, a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and also sends the typically omitted "signature_algorithms_cert" TLS extension. Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible. CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference Description: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests that key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration is to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or signed by any convenient CA). When the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the "signature_algorithms_cert" extension is handled reliably even without the fix, and peer clients or servers that don't support raw public keys may be able to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding certificate or its public key. Deployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate need to upgrade to an updated release as noted below. FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
OpenSSL OpenSSL Version: 4.0.0   ≤
Version: 3.6.0   ≤
Version: 3.5.0   ≤
Version: 3.4.0   ≤
Create a notification for this product.
Show details on NVD website

To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "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"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2026-14457",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "yes"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2026-08-25T14:13:25.034178Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-08-25T14:13:27.811Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "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"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Filipe Casal (Trail of Bits)"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "remediation developer",
          "value": "Viktor Dukhovni"
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2026-08-25T11:36:16.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\u003cbr\u003eenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\u003cbr\u003ea NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\u003cbr\u003ealso sends the typically omitted \"signature_algorithms_cert\" TLS extension.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\u003cbr\u003ean application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\u003cbr\u003ethat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\u003cbr\u003eis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\u003cbr\u003esigned by any convenient CA).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\u003cbr\u003e\"signature_algorithms_cert\" extension is handled reliably even without the\u003cbr\u003efix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\u003cbr\u003eable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\u003cbr\u003ecertificate or its public key.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\u003cbr\u003eneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\u003cbr\u003eis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
            }
          ],
          "value": "Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\nenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\na NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\nalso sends the typically omitted \"signature_algorithms_cert\" TLS extension.\n\nImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\nan application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\n\nDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\nthat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\nis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\nsigned by any convenient CA).\n\nWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\n\"signature_algorithms_cert\" extension is handled reliably even without the\nfix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\nable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\ncertificate or its public key.\n\nDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\nneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\n\nFIPS impact: no\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\nis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "format": "other",
          "other": {
            "content": {
              "text": "Low"
            },
            "type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-476",
              "description": "CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-08-25T12:58:29.349Z",
        "orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
        "shortName": "openssl"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"
        },
        {
          "name": "4.0.2 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/dad836b071da6579510c968615848ba03cac593b"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.6.4 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/581aaa0f0a35d214740f0fe1f5283ec41f1212e1"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.5.8 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d0af20478688a6aa2f59d61caa3f82136b181d7f"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.4.7 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/1e8c398db67404babd3e5af999bb6bd86f720c76"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
    "assignerShortName": "openssl",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-14457",
    "datePublished": "2026-08-25T12:58:29.349Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-07-02T08:37:07.046Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-08-25T14:13:27.811Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 7.5, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"HIGH\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H\", \"integrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"NONE\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-14457\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"yes\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-08-25T14:13:25.034178Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-25T14:13:22.661Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"reporter\", \"value\": \"Filipe Casal (Trail of Bits)\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"remediation developer\", \"value\": \"Viktor Dukhovni\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/\", \"content\": {\"text\": \"Low\"}}, \"format\": \"other\"}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"OpenSSL\", \"product\": \"OpenSSL\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"4.0.0\", \"lessThan\": \"4.0.2\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.6.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.6.4\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.5.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.5.8\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.4.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.4.7\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"datePublic\": \"2026-08-25T11:36:16.000Z\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt\", \"name\": \"OpenSSL Advisory\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/dad836b071da6579510c968615848ba03cac593b\", \"name\": \"4.0.2 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/581aaa0f0a35d214740f0fe1f5283ec41f1212e1\", \"name\": \"3.6.4 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d0af20478688a6aa2f59d61caa3f82136b181d7f\", \"name\": \"3.5.8 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/1e8c398db67404babd3e5af999bb6bd86f720c76\", \"name\": \"3.4.7 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.2.0\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\\nenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\\na NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\\nalso sends the typically omitted \\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" TLS extension.\\n\\nImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\\nan application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\\n\\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\\n\\nDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\\nthat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\\nis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\\nsigned by any convenient CA).\\n\\nWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\\n\\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" extension is handled reliably even without the\\nfix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\\nable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\\ncertificate or its public key.\\n\\nDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\\nneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\\n\\nFIPS impact: no\\n\\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\\nis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\u003cbr\u003eenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\u003cbr\u003ea NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\u003cbr\u003ealso sends the typically omitted \\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" TLS extension.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\u003cbr\u003ean application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\u003cbr\u003ethat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\u003cbr\u003eis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\u003cbr\u003esigned by any convenient CA).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\u003cbr\u003e\\\"signature_algorithms_cert\\\" extension is handled reliably even without the\u003cbr\u003efix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0027t support raw public keys may be\u003cbr\u003eable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\u003cbr\u003ecertificate or its public key.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\u003cbr\u003eneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\u003cbr\u003eis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-476\", \"description\": \"CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"shortName\": \"openssl\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-25T12:58:29.349Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-14457\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-08-25T14:13:27.811Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-07-02T08:37:07.046Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-08-25T12:58:29.349Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"openssl\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.2"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.