VulnerabilityPublished 29 Sep 2026Updated 10 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-75806: OpenSSL · Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input

Affects OpenSSLSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 4.0.3 : update OpenSSL when convenient.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 13:17 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CISA-ADP	CVSS 3.1	5.3

Exploitation: No evidence of active exploitation and no public proof of concept
Automatable: Attackers can reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-09-29.

Patch

Available – fixed in 4.0.3, 3.6.5, 3.5.9 +3

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

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

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 10 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
OpenSSLOpenSSL	Affected >=4.0.0 <4.0.3	Fixed in 4.0.3
OpenSSLOpenSSL	Affected >=3.6.0 <3.6.5	Fixed in 3.6.5
OpenSSLOpenSSL	Affected >=3.5.0 <3.5.9	Fixed in 3.5.9
OpenSSLOpenSSL	Affected >=3.4.0 <3.4.8	Fixed in 3.4.8
OpenSSLOpenSSL	Affected >=3.0.0 <3.0.23	Fixed in 3.0.23
OpenSSLOpenSSL	Affected >=1.1.1 <1.1.1zj	Fixed in 1.1.1zj

AI-suggested

Fixed versions are available in OpenSSL releases 4.0.3, 3.6.5, 3.5.9, 3.4.8, 3.0.23, and 1.1.1zj. Users should upgrade to these versions to remediate the vulnerability. No additional mitigation is required as the fix properly validates record lengths before AEAD processing.

Description

CVE-2026-75806 is a vulnerability in OpenSSL's handling of DTLS 1.2 associations using AEAD cipher suites. An attacker can send a specially crafted datagram with an encrypted fragment shorter than the required explicit IV and authentication tag overhead, causing the targeted DTLS association to be terminated. This results in a denial of service limited to the affected association without impacting memory safety or confidentiality. The issue arises because the record length is not properly validated before AEAD processing, leading to an internal error alert rather than the expected authentication failure alert. The vulnerability affects multiple OpenSSL versions prior to fixed releases.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker capable of sending datagrams routed to an existing DTLS 1.2 association can cause a denial of service by tearing down that association. There is no impact on confidentiality or memory safety. The denial of service is limited to the targeted DTLS association only.

Summary

This vulnerability involves improper validation of the specified quantity in input records for DTLS 1.2 using AEAD cipher suites in OpenSSL. When a record is shorter than the mandatory explicit IV and authentication tag overhead, the cipher implementation rejects the length, but the record layer treats this as an internal failure and raises a fatal internal_error alert instead of a bad_record_mac alert. In TLS 1.2, this causes a protocol conformance issue, while in DTLS 1.2, it allows an unauthenticated attacker to terminate an established association by sending a single malformed datagram. The fix ensures record length validation against explicit IV and tag length before AEAD processing, causing TLS to report bad_record_mac and DTLS to silently discard the record. This vulnerability does not affect FIPS modules and has no confidentiality or memory safety impact.

CWE-1284Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Nov 2026, 13:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats