CVE-2026-34182 (GCVE-0-2026-34182)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2026-06-09 16:03
Modified
2026-06-10 15:58
Severity ?
CWE
  • CWE-354 - Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
Summary
Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of AuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises. Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity validation for a given message. In one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing AuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher. OpenSSL erroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the message. An on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData addressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left byte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK (the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB (Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an attacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the real CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success. If the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator showing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the attacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the CEK used for the chosen recipient of the message. In another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD cipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long, allowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity bypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content. The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
OpenSSL OpenSSL Version: 4.0.0   ≤
Version: 3.6.0   ≤
Version: 3.5.0   ≤
Version: 3.4.0   ≤
Version: 3.0.0   ≤
Create a notification for this product.
Show details on NVD website

To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "LOW",
              "attackVector": "NETWORK",
              "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
              "baseScore": 9.1,
              "baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
              "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
              "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "NONE",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2026-34182",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "yes"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2026-06-10T15:58:17.905043Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-06-10T15:58:52.695Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "OpenSSL",
          "vendor": "OpenSSL",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "4.0.1",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "4.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.6.3",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.6.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.5.7",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.5.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.4.6",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.4.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.0.21",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Asim Viladi Oglu Manizada"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Alex Gaynor (Anthropic)"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Ying Dong"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Haiyang Huang"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "remediation developer",
          "value": "Neil Horman"
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2026-06-09T14:00:00.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\u003cbr\u003esufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\u003cbr\u003eAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\u003cbr\u003ekey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\u003cbr\u003evalidation for a given message.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\u003cbr\u003eAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\u003cbr\u003eerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\u003cbr\u003emessage.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\u003cbr\u003eaddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\u003cbr\u003ebyte-for-byte intact, so the victim\u0027s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\u003cbr\u003e(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\u003cbr\u003e(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\u003cbr\u003eattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\u003cbr\u003ereal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\u003cbr\u003eshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\u003cbr\u003eattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\u003cbr\u003eCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\u003cbr\u003ecipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\u003cbr\u003eallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\u003cbr\u003ebypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue."
            }
          ],
          "value": "Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\n\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\nvalidation for a given message.\n\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\nmessage.\n\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim\u0027s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\n\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\n\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\n\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "format": "other",
          "other": {
            "content": {
              "text": "Moderate"
            },
            "type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-354",
              "description": "CWE-354 Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-06-10T07:47:54.994Z",
        "orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
        "shortName": "openssl"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt"
        },
        {
          "name": "4.0.1 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9fd97f8cfdc2c0be214998de3b2b55c8edf6c7ac"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.6.3 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/439ed7d2c0962ce964482727264668bf277c333f"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.5.7 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7947e6a81eb8776802f159fb6762cb7fcf7e34c7"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.4.6 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d2ca86bcd43e4f17d899f347101766b6107676e0"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.0.21 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/03c1f4d45fb963aee7d5833390c507cd290182bc"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
    "assignerShortName": "openssl",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-34182",
    "datePublished": "2026-06-09T16:03:22.848Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-03-26T09:29:36.013Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-06-10T15:58:52.695Z",
    "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\": 9.1, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"CRITICAL\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N\", \"integrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-34182\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"yes\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-06-10T15:58:17.905043Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-10T15:56:46.661Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"CMS AuthEnvelopedData Processing May Accept Forged Messages\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"reporter\", \"value\": \"Asim Viladi Oglu Manizada\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"reporter\", \"value\": \"Alex Gaynor (Anthropic)\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"reporter\", \"value\": \"Ying Dong\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"reporter\", \"value\": \"Haiyang Huang\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"remediation developer\", \"value\": \"Neil Horman\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/\", \"content\": {\"text\": \"Moderate\"}}, \"format\": \"other\"}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"OpenSSL\", \"product\": \"OpenSSL\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"4.0.0\", \"lessThan\": \"4.0.1\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.6.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.6.3\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.5.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.5.7\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.4.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.4.6\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.0.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.0.21\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"datePublic\": \"2026-06-09T14:00:00.000Z\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt\", \"name\": \"OpenSSL Advisory\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9fd97f8cfdc2c0be214998de3b2b55c8edf6c7ac\", \"name\": \"4.0.1 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/439ed7d2c0962ce964482727264668bf277c333f\", \"name\": \"3.6.3 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7947e6a81eb8776802f159fb6762cb7fcf7e34c7\", \"name\": \"3.5.7 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d2ca86bcd43e4f17d899f347101766b6107676e0\", \"name\": \"3.4.6 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/03c1f4d45fb963aee7d5833390c507cd290182bc\", \"name\": \"3.0.21 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.2.0\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\\nsufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\\nAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\\n\\nImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\\nkey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\\nvalidation for a given message.\\n\\nIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\\nAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\\nerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\\nmessage.\\n\\nAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\\naddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\\nbyte-for-byte intact, so the victim\u0027s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\\n(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\\n(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\\nattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\\nreal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\\n\\nIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\\nshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\\nattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\\nCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\\n\\nIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\\ncipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\\nallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\\nbypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\\n\\nThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform\u003cbr\u003esufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of\u003cbr\u003eAuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve\u003cbr\u003ekey-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity\u003cbr\u003evalidation for a given message.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing\u003cbr\u003eAuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher.  OpenSSL\u003cbr\u003eerroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the\u003cbr\u003emessage.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAn on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData\u003cbr\u003eaddressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left\u003cbr\u003ebyte-for-byte intact, so the victim\u0027s private key still unwraps the genuine CEK\u003cbr\u003e(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB\u003cbr\u003e(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an\u003cbr\u003eattacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the\u003cbr\u003ereal CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIf the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator\u003cbr\u003eshowing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the\u003cbr\u003eattacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the\u003cbr\u003eCEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD\u003cbr\u003ecipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,\u003cbr\u003eallowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity\u003cbr\u003ebypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-354\", \"description\": \"CWE-354 Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"shortName\": \"openssl\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-10T07:47:54.994Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-34182\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-10T15:58:52.695Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-03-26T09:29:36.013Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-06-09T16:03:22.848Z\", \"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.