VulnerabilityPublished 30 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-118782: Forge · PKCS#12 MAC forgery and constant-key PBE via zero iteration count

Affects node-forgeSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-118782· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 1.4.1 soon.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 02:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	7.5

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 29 Oct 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 30 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.
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 node-forge to 1.4.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmnode-forge	Affected <1.4.1	Fixed in 1.4.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade node-forge to version 1.4.1 or later, where iteration counts less than 1 are rejected during PKCS#12 MAC verification and key derivation. As a workaround before upgrading, reject inputs with MacData.iterations less than 1 before calling forge.pkcs12.pkcs12FromAsn1(), and similarly check pkcs-12PbeParams iteration counts before decrypting private keys. No other simple workarounds exist for encrypted private keys using the affected PKCS#12 PBE schemes.

Description

A vulnerability in node-forge versions prior to 1.4.1 allows an attacker to forge PKCS#12 MACs and decrypt PKCS#12 PBE-encrypted private keys without knowing the password by exploiting a zero or negative iteration count in the key derivation function. This flaw causes the key derivation to produce a constant key independent of the password or salt, enabling an attacker to supply malicious PKCS#12 files that verify successfully under any password. The issue is fixed in node-forge 1.4.1 by rejecting iteration counts less than 1.

Impact

Applications using vulnerable node-forge versions to import PKCS#12/PFX files or PKCS#8 encrypted private keys from untrusted sources and relying on password-based MAC verification or decryption for authentication can be tricked into accepting attacker-supplied certificates and private keys. This compromises the integrity of the authentication process, allowing attackers to bypass password verification without learning the password or original private key. The vulnerability does not affect PBES2 (PBKDF2) encrypted content.

Summary

The function forge.pkcs12.pkcs12FromAsn1() in node-forge versions before 1.4.1 accepts a PKCS#12 MAC iteration count of zero or less from input, which leads the PKCS#12 key derivation function to return a constant key that does not depend on the password or salt. This allows an attacker to modify a PKCS#12/PFX file and compute a MAC that verifies with any password. Similarly, PKCS#12 PBE-encrypted private keys with zero or negative iteration counts decrypt with any password. The vulnerability arises because the iteration count is not validated to be at least 1, contrary to RFC 7292 specifications. The fix in version 1.4.1 rejects iteration counts less than 1, preventing this attack vector.

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).
CWE-354Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message.
Implementation
The protocol specification describes the algorithm used for calculating the checksum. It is then a matter of implementing the calculation and verifying that the calculated checksum and the received checksum match.
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)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Checksum Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files (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 31 Oct 2026, 02:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1284, CWE-354

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats