CVE-2026-14457High· 7.5▾ TwilightIssue 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 solic…
▾ Twilight zone — High severity, or a signal on a lesser flaw
impact 41.3 · likelihood 0.2 · exploitation 0
Need a working PoC? Pro members can cast a request and our team develops one — it lands right here.
Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization from CISA's ADP record at CVE.org: whether exploitation is observed, whether an attack can be automated, and how much of the system is at stake.
Exploit-prediction probability, daily snapshots since Sep 12.
Disclosure to exploitation, from the record and what we observed since indexing it.
Disclosed via NVD
Last analysed / modified upstream
1.0%
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.
openssl >= 3.4.0, < 3.4.7openssl >= 3.5.0, < 3.5.8openssl >= 3.6.0, < 3.6.4openssl >= 4.0.0, < 4.0.2Upgrade past the affected range:
openssl 4.0.2Connected by shared product, vendor, weakness, or advisory.
CVE-2026-63076High· 7.5Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only checks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its ASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter
CVE-2026-63072High· 7.5Issue summary: OpenSSL CMS decryption sizes the key-unwrap output buffer based on querying the unwrapped key size, but the AES-WRAP-PAD unwrap primitive can write and cleanse more bytes than that query reports, causing an 8-byte out-of-b…
CVE-2026-54874High· 7.5Issue summary: Receiving a DTLS record for a future epoch while a handshake is in progress causes OpenSSL to buffer far more memory than the record itself requires. Impact summary: A peer can use a small amount of network traffic to mak…
CVE-2026-75803Critical· 9.1Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty ciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication tag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function. Impact summary: …
CVE-2026-63073Critical· 9.8Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP response validation passed an unexpected response sender distinguished name directly as the format string to `ERR_raise_data()`. Impact summary: A malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint can crash a CMP client t…
CVE-2026-63074Medium· 5.9Issue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches additional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges them (for instance if they are invalid)