In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the Messaging Layer Security (MLS, RFC 9420) implementation did not bind an X.509 credential to a LeafNode's… (CVE-2026-71885)
A vulnerability in Bouncy Castle for Java before version 1.86 affects the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) implementation. The issue is that the X.509 credential was not properly bound to a LeafNode's signature key, allowing an attacker to present another party's certificate as their own. This flaw could enable an unauthenticated attacker to impersonate a victim's identity within a group, evict the victim, decrypt group messages, and send messages accepted as the victim. The vulnerability is fixed by requiring the end-entity certificate's public key to match the signature key in the LeafNode. Deployments using only basic credentials are not affected.
AI Analysis
Technical Summary
In Bouncy Castle for Java versions prior to 1.86, the MLS implementation did not enforce that the X.509 certificate's public key matched the LeafNode's signature_key as required by RFC 9420 section 5.3. The LeafNode.verify() method validated the signature against the signature_key in the leaf but did not parse or validate the certificate chain, allowing an attacker to present a different party's certificate while signing with an unrelated key. This could allow an unauthenticated attacker to be admitted under a victim's X.509 identity in deployments that accept external commits without independent credential checks, leading to victim eviction, decryption of group messages, and message forgery. The fix requires the LeafNode to reject leaves where the certificate's public key does not match the signature_key, including empty or mismatched certificate chains. Certificate chain validation remains the application's responsibility per RFC 9420 sec. 5.3.1. Deployments using only basic credentials are unaffected.
Potential Impact
An unauthenticated attacker could impersonate another party's X.509 identity within an MLS group, evict the legitimate member, decrypt subsequent group messages, and send messages accepted as the victim. This compromises group confidentiality, integrity, and membership authentication in affected deployments that admit external commits without independent credential checks.
Mitigation Recommendations
A fix is available in Bouncy Castle for Java version 1.86 and later, which enforces that the end-entity certificate's public key matches the LeafNode's signature_key. Users should upgrade to version 1.86 or later. Certificate chain and identity validation remain the responsibility of the application as per RFC 9420. Deployments using only basic credentials are not affected and require no action.
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the Messaging Layer Security (MLS, RFC 9420) implementation did not bind an X.509 credential to a LeafNode's… (CVE-2026-71885)
Description
A vulnerability in Bouncy Castle for Java before version 1.86 affects the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) implementation. The issue is that the X.509 credential was not properly bound to a LeafNode's signature key, allowing an attacker to present another party's certificate as their own. This flaw could enable an unauthenticated attacker to impersonate a victim's identity within a group, evict the victim, decrypt group messages, and send messages accepted as the victim. The vulnerability is fixed by requiring the end-entity certificate's public key to match the signature key in the LeafNode. Deployments using only basic credentials are not affected.
CVSS v4.0
Affected software
pkg:maven/org.bouncycastle/bcprov-jdk15onRun on your own infrastructure? Check whether these packages are installed with threat-finder — our free open-source scanner.
Weaknesses
AI-Powered Analysis
Machine-generated threat intelligence
Technical Analysis
In Bouncy Castle for Java versions prior to 1.86, the MLS implementation did not enforce that the X.509 certificate's public key matched the LeafNode's signature_key as required by RFC 9420 section 5.3. The LeafNode.verify() method validated the signature against the signature_key in the leaf but did not parse or validate the certificate chain, allowing an attacker to present a different party's certificate while signing with an unrelated key. This could allow an unauthenticated attacker to be admitted under a victim's X.509 identity in deployments that accept external commits without independent credential checks, leading to victim eviction, decryption of group messages, and message forgery. The fix requires the LeafNode to reject leaves where the certificate's public key does not match the signature_key, including empty or mismatched certificate chains. Certificate chain validation remains the application's responsibility per RFC 9420 sec. 5.3.1. Deployments using only basic credentials are unaffected.
Potential Impact
An unauthenticated attacker could impersonate another party's X.509 identity within an MLS group, evict the legitimate member, decrypt subsequent group messages, and send messages accepted as the victim. This compromises group confidentiality, integrity, and membership authentication in affected deployments that admit external commits without independent credential checks.
Mitigation Recommendations
A fix is available in Bouncy Castle for Java version 1.86 and later, which enforces that the end-entity certificate's public key matches the LeafNode's signature_key. Users should upgrade to version 1.86 or later. Certificate chain and identity validation remain the responsibility of the application as per RFC 9420. Deployments using only basic credentials are not affected and require no action.
Technical Details
- Gcve Source
- db.gcve.eu
- Osv Id
- GHSA-jch3-5j66-88vx
- Osv Schema Version
- 1.4.0
- Aliases
- ["CVE-2026-71885"]
- Database Specific Severity
- CRITICAL
- Cvss Version
- 4.0
- State
- PUBLISHED
Threat ID: 6ac1397ba43b0b3b89d63c78
Added to database: 10/03/2026, 17:20:59 UTC
Last enriched: 10/03/2026, 17:29:55 UTC
Last updated: 10/04/2026, 02:46:06 UTC
Views: 11
Community Reviews
0 reviewsCrowdsource mitigation strategies, share intel context, and vote on the most helpful responses. Sign in to add your voice and help keep defenders ahead.
Want to contribute mitigation steps or threat intel context? Sign in or create an account to join the community discussion.
Actions
Updates to AI analysis require Pro Console access. Upgrade inside Console → Billing.
Need more coverage?
Upgrade to Pro Console for AI refresh and higher limits.
For incident response and remediation, OffSeq services can help resolve threats faster.
Latest Threats
Check if your credentials are on the dark web
Instant breach scanning across billions of leaked records. Free tier available.