Issue summary: Checking excessively long DH keys or parameters may be very slow.
Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_check(), DH_check_ex()
or EVP_PKEY_param_check() to check a DH key or DH parameters may experience long
delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained
from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service.
The function DH_check() performs various checks on DH parameters. After fixing
CVE-2023-3446 it was discovered that a large q parameter value can also trigger
an overly long computation during some of these checks. A correct q value,
if present, cannot be larger than the modulus p parameter, thus it is
unnecessary to perform these checks if q is larger than p.
An application that calls DH_check() and supplies a key or parameters obtained
from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack.
The function DH_check() is itself called by a number of other OpenSSL functions.
An application calling any of those other functions may similarly be affected.
The other functions affected by this are DH_check_ex() and
EVP_PKEY_param_check().
Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL dhparam and pkeyparam command line applications
when using the "-check" option.
The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.
The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 3.0% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it