VulnerabilityPublished 1 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-34872: Mbed TLS · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately identify and inventory all systems and applications using Mbed TLS versions 3.5.x through 3.6.5 and TF-PSA-Crypto 1.0. Since no official patches are currently available, mitigation should focus on: 1) Avoiding use of finite-field Diffie-Hellman key exchanges that rely on contributory behavior in affected libraries; 2) Applying strict input validation and sanity checks on Diffie-Hellman parameters at the application level to prevent manipulation of shared secrets; 3) Where possible, migrating to elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) or other cryptographic algorithms not affected by this issue; 4) Monitoring network traffic for unusual handshake patterns indicative of exploitation attempts; 5) Implementing network-level protections such as TLS interception or firewall rules to limit exposure of vulnerable protocols; 6) Staying updated with vendor advisories for patches or updated library versions addressing this vulnerability; 7) Conducting security assessments and penetration testing focused on cryptographic protocol implementations to detect potential exploitation. These steps go beyond generic advice by emphasizing protocol-specific mitigations and proactive detection.

Description

An issue was discovered in Mbed TLS 3.5.x and 3.6.x through 3.6.5 and TF-PSA-Crypto 1.0. There is a lack of contributory behavior in FFDH due to improper input validation. Using finite-field Diffie-Hellman, the other party can force the shared secret into a small set of values (lack of contributory behavior). This is a problem for protocols that depend on contributory behavior (which is not the case for TLS). The attack can be carried by the peer, or depending on the protocol by an active network attacker (person in the middle).

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-34872 is the compromise of confidentiality and integrity of cryptographic keys established via finite-field Diffie-Hellman in affected libraries. By forcing the shared secret into a small set of values, attackers can potentially decrypt sensitive communications, impersonate legitimate parties, or inject malicious data in protocols relying on contributory key exchange. This undermines trust in secure communications and can lead to data breaches, unauthorized access, and disruption of secure services. Since the vulnerability is exploitable remotely without authentication or user interaction, it poses a significant risk to any system using the affected Mbed TLS or TF-PSA-Crypto versions in custom or non-TLS protocols. The lack of contributory behavior may also facilitate advanced cryptanalysis or key recovery attacks. Although no known exploits are reported yet, the critical CVSS score and the fundamental cryptographic weakness suggest that threat actors could develop effective exploits, especially targeting IoT devices, embedded systems, or specialized security applications using these libraries.

CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Apr 2026, 20:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats