CVE-2026-61798

HIGHPre-NVD 8.18.1
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 8.1 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-08-20. The CNA's CVSS baseline 8.1; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-2mc4-j865-9q4r (GitHub Security Advisories)

8.1EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 8.1Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

netty-incubator-codec-ohttp: BoringSSL HPKE private key bytes exposed through toString() and exception messages

Summary

io.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl exposes raw HPKE private key bytes in string representations and error messages. BoringSSLAsymmetricCipherKeyPair.toString() includes the private-key parameter object, and BoringSSLAsymmetricKeyParameter.toString() renders the full byte array with Arrays.toString(bytes). Separately, failed native key initialization includes Arrays.toString(privateKeyBytes) in the thrown IllegalArgumentException message. Applications that log key-pair objects or exceptions can persist private key material in logs.

Details

codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/hpke/boringssl/BoringSSLAsymmetricCipherKeyPair.java renders private key material through toString():

  • BoringSSLAsymmetricCipherKeyPair.toString() at lines 72-78 concatenates "privateKey=" + privateKey.
  • privateKey is a BoringSSLAsymmetricKeyParameter created with isPrivate=true at lines 26-36.

codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/hpke/boringssl/BoringSSLAsymmetricKeyParameter.java then renders all bytes:

  • BoringSSLAsymmetricKeyParameter.toString() at lines 70-76 returns "bytes=" + Arrays.toString(bytes) regardless of whether isPrivate is true.

A separate error path in codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/hpke/boringssl/BoringSSL.java also exposes caller-provided private key bytes:

  • EVP_HPKE_KEY_init_or_throw(...) at lines 228-232 throws IllegalArgumentException("privateKeyBytes does not contain a valid private key: " + Arrays.toString(privateKeyBytes)) when BoringSSL rejects the key.

Because Java logging frameworks commonly call toString() for structured objects and commonly persist exception messages, these paths can place complete HPKE private key material in logs or telemetry.

Proof of concept

Safe local verification was performed without native BoringSSL by compiling the relevant Java classes and a no-op native stub for the unused finalizer reference. The observed output includes the full private key byte array:

BoringSSLAsymmetricCipherKeyPair{privateKey=BoringSSLAsymmetricKeyParameter{bytes=[1, 2, 3, 4], isPrivate=true}, publicKey=BoringSSLAsymmetricKeyParameter{bytes=[5, 6, 7, 8], isPrivate=false}}

Minimal reproducer concept in the same package:

package io.netty.incubator.codec.hpke.boringssl;

public final class VerifyPrivateKeyToString { public static void main(String[] args) { byte[] privateKey = new byte[] {1, 2, 3, 4}; byte[] publicKey = new byte[] {5, 6, 7, 8}; BoringSSLAsymmetricCipherKeyPair pair = new BoringSSLAsymmetricCipherKeyPair(privateKey, publicKey); System.out.println(pair.toString()); } }

The code path is deterministic: the production toString() methods concatenate the raw private-key byte array.

Impact

If an affected key pair or initialization exception is logged, application logs contain complete HPKE private key material. Anyone with access to those logs can recover the key. Depending on key reuse and log retention, this can compromise:

  • confidentiality of OHTTP messages encrypted to the exposed key;
  • integrity/authenticity expectations for future messages if the key remains active;
  • incident response and key rotation assumptions, because logs may retain key material long after the in-memory key is rotated.

Suggested remediation

  • Redact private key material in BoringSSLAsymmetricKeyParameter.toString() when isPrivate is true, for example bytes= or only key type/length.
  • Redact privateKey in BoringSSLAsymmetricCipherKeyPair.toString().
  • Remove Arrays.toString(privateKeyBytes) from BoringSSL.EVP_HPKE_KEY_init_or_throw(...); report only length and KEM metadata.
  • Add regression tests asserting that toString() and exception messages do not contain private key byte values.
  • Consider making key pair classes avoid implementing detailed toString() for sensitive material entirely.

References

  • codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/hpke/boringssl/BoringSSLAsymmetricCipherKeyPair.java:72-78
  • codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/hpke/boringssl/BoringSSLAsymmetricKeyParameter.java:70-76
  • codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/hpke/boringssl/BoringSSL.java:228-232

CVSS v3
8.1
EG Score
8.1HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
36
EG Risk 36/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity81% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.1 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (8.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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

Published

August 20, 2026

Last Modified

August 20, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-61798(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
mavenio.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl @ 0.0.23.Final (fixes <= 0.0.22.Final)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Maven(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
io.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl0.0.10.Final ... 0.0.9.Final (20 versions)
  • every version up to 0.0.23.Final: fixed in 0.0.23.Final
—

Weakness Classification(3)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 2× in last 7d / 8× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 07:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-2mc4-j865-9q4r · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.1
  2. 2026-11-01 07:41 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-25 14:14 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-18 03:25 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-12 15:50 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 19:34 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 16:49 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 14:11 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-28 21:37 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-08-20 19:42 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 8.1 HIGH

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-61798?
CVE-2026-61798 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 20, 2026. netty-incubator-codec-ohttp: BoringSSL HPKE private key bytes exposed through toString() and exception messages Summary io.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-ohttp-hpke-classes-boringssl exposes raw HPKE private key bytes in string representations and error messages.…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-61798 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-61798 was published on August 20, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 20, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-61798?
CVE-2026-61798 has a CVSS base score of 8.1 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-61798?
A fix for CVE-2026-61798 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-61798 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-61798

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-61798?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.