VulnerabilityPublished 3 Aug 2026Updated 28 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-13586: bcprov-fips · In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, PKCS#12 MAC and bag-decryption KDF iteration-count bound (DoS)

Affects bcprov-fipsSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-13586· Medium 5.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 2.1.0 : update bcprov-fips when convenient.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Java prior to 1.85
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.1.0, 2.0.0, 1.0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Supplemental metrics

Provider Urgency: Amber

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Provider Urgency: Amber: Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having a moderate urgency.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Aug 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 1 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.

ghsa-pxw2-f34f-xjvr

What to do

Upgrade org.bouncycastle/bcprov-fips to 2.1.0, 2.0.0 or 1.0.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.bouncycastle/bcprov-fips`pkg:maven/org.bouncycastle/bcprov-fips`Other threats	Affected <1.0.0 <2.0.0 <2.1.0	Fixed in 1.0.0 2.0.0 2.1.0

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

Description

A vulnerability in Bouncy Castle for Java prior to version 1.85 allows an attacker to exploit the PKCS#12 MAC and bag-decryption KDF iteration-count bound, potentially causing a denial of service (DoS). This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS versions before 2.73.12 and various versions of Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS. The vulnerability is categorized under CWE-770, which relates to allocation of resources without limits or throttling.

Impact

An attacker can exploit the unbounded iteration count in the PKCS#12 MAC and bag-decryption KDF to cause excessive resource consumption, resulting in a denial of service condition. This could disrupt services relying on the affected Bouncy Castle Java libraries. There are no reports of active exploitation in the wild.

Summary

CVE-2026-13586 describes a denial of service vulnerability in Bouncy Castle for Java versions before 1.85, as well as in Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12 and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS versions before bc-fips 1.0.2.7 (1.0.X), 2.0.2 (2.0.X), and 2.1.3 (2.1.X). The issue arises from insufficient bounds on the iteration count used in the PKCS#12 MAC and bag-decryption key derivation function (KDF), which can be exploited to cause excessive resource consumption leading to a denial of service. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-770, indicating improper limitation of resource consumption.

CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (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 3 Aug 2026, 21:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats