Issue summary: Calling PKCS12_get_friendlyname() function on a maliciously
crafted PKCS#12 file with a BMPString (UTF-16BE) friendly name containing
non-ASCII BMP code point can trigger a one byte write before the allocated
buffer.
Impact summary: The out-of-bounds write can cause a memory corruption
which can have various consequences including a Denial of Service.
The OPENSSL_uni2utf8() function performs a two-pass conversion of a PKCS#12
BMPString (UTF-16BE) to UTF-8. In the second pass, when emitting UTF-8 bytes,
the helper function bmp_to_utf8() incorrectly forwards the remaining UTF-16
source byte count as the destination buffer capacity to UTF8_putc(). For BMP
code points above U+07FF, UTF-8 requires three bytes, but the forwarded
capacity can be just two bytes. UTF8_putc() then returns -1, and this negative
value is added to the output length without validation, causing the
length to become negative. The subsequent trailing NUL byte is then written
at a negative offset, causing write outside of heap allocated buffer.
The vulnerability is reachable via the public PKCS12_get_friendlyname() API
when parsing attacker-controlled PKCS#12 files. While PKCS12_parse() uses a
different code path that avoids this issue, PKCS12_get_friendlyname() directly
invokes the vulnerable function. Exploitation requires an attacker to provide
a malicious PKCS#12 file to be parsed by the application and the attacker
can just trigger a one zero byte write before the allocated buffer.
For that reason the issue was assessed as Low severity according to our
Security Policy.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue,
as the PKCS#12 implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0 and 1.1.1 are vulnerable to this issue.
OpenSSL 1.0.2 is 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 (7.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.4 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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