Issue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches
additional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges
them (for instance if they are invalid). If a server reuses an OSSL_CMP_CTX
frequently, this cache of extraCerts may grow unboundedly, and a malicious
client may flood a CMP server with requests driving this growth.
Impact summary: Users utilizing a CMP server that reuses a single OSSL_CMP_CTX
for the lifetime of a server process may observe unbounded memory growth in the
event a malicious client repeatedly sends requests containing unique extra
certificates, which may lead to OOM conditions.
CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Description: If a remote user sends CMP messages to a server with a list of
extraCerts and the message is rejected, the extraCerts from the message remains
in the server contexts untrusted certificate stack. This exposes servers with
long lived ctx objects to Denial of Service attacks in which an attacker sends
messages intending to be rejected with a large list of additional certificates
repeatedly, forcing the server to store them indefinitely.
The issue was fixed by removing the added extra certs if the message is
rejected, using the same method as when the context is configured to not do
caching at all.
FIPS impact: no
As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS
modules are affected by this CVE.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.9 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-24). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)60 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 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