Issue summary: Receiving a DTLS record for a future epoch while a handshake
is in progress causes OpenSSL to buffer far more memory than the record
itself requires.
Impact summary: A peer can use a small amount of network traffic to make an
OpenSSL DTLS endpoint retain a disproportionately large amount of memory,
which may lead to a Denial of Service.
CWE: CWE-405: Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification)
Description: While a DTLS handshake is in progress, a peer may legitimately
have already moved on to the next epoch (for example, having sent its
ChangeCipherSpec and Finished messages) before the local endpoint has
processed the same transition, typically because of reordering on the
underlying UDP transport. OpenSSL buffers such early records so that they
can be processed once the local endpoint catches up.
Buffering a record currently retains the entire read buffer it arrived in,
which is sized to hold the largest possible DTLS record (around 16
kilobytes), rather than just the bytes that make up the record itself. Up
to 100 such records may be buffered per connection. As a result, a peer
that sends a stream of small forged records claiming to belong to the next
epoch can cause an OpenSSL DTLS endpoint to retain around 1.7 megabytes of
memory, despite sending only a small fraction of that amount of data over
the network.
An attacker therefore gains a memory amplification factor of around 1200,
and can multiply the effect across as many associations as it is able to
open, making this a remote memory exhaustion Denial of Service risk for
DTLS servers. Since the memory retained per connection remains bounded,
and any limit an application already places on the number of concurrent
associations also bounds the total exposure, this issue has been assessed
as Low severity.
FIPS impact: no
No FIPS modules are affected by this issue as the affected code is outside
the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
OpenSSL 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.0, 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are vulnerable to this
issue.
OpenSSL 4.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 4.0.2.
OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.4.
OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.8.
OpenSSL 3.4 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.4.7.
OpenSSL 3.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.0.22.
Premium support customers only:
OpenSSL 1.1.1 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.1.1zi
OpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.0.2zr
This issue was reported on 18 May 2026 by Amazon Web Services.
The fix has been developed by Matt Caswell.
-- cut (non-publishing metadata for internal use) --
Reported by: Amazon Web Services
Fixed by: Matt Caswell
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 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 2026-10-30). 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