CVE-2026-72897

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-09-29. CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 baseline 7.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1, EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory
Trending — 4 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-89008 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Issue summary: A TLS server that calls SSL_set_SSL_CTX() to switch a connection to a different SSL_CTX part way through a handshake may access memory beyond the end of an internal array if the replacement context knows about more provider signature algorithms than the context the connection was created from. Applications which never call SSL_set_SSL_CTX() are not affected.

Impact summary: A remote peer may be able to cause a small out-of-bounds read, and in some circumstances a fixed-value out-of-bounds write, on the server heap. This may lead to a Denial of Service.

CWE: CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write

Description: A TLS connection records how many certificate slots it has when it is created, taken from the SSL_CTX that created it: the built-in certificate types plus one slot for each provider TLS-SIGALG entry that context was aware of. That count sizes an internal array of per-slot certificate validity flags.

An application may replace a connection's SSL_CTX part way through the handshake by calling SSL_set_SSL_CTX(), most commonly from a servername callback in order to serve a different virtual host. Doing so did not refresh the recorded count. A provider signature algorithm's slot index is its position in the list of whichever context resolves it, so if the replacement context is aware of more of them than the original, an algorithm offered by the peer can resolve to an index beyond the end of the array. Processing the peer's signature algorithms then reads one four byte word past the end for each such algorithm and, where the word read is zero, writes a fixed value over it. A peer offering many of them can corrupt heap metadata and abort the process.

Only provider signature algorithms which occupy one of the excess slots, and which the server also has configured, have this effect. Codepoints the replacement context does not recognise are discarded without being resolved to a slot, and provider signature algorithms are usable only from TLS 1.3.

The two contexts must therefore be aware of different numbers of provider signature algorithms, which requires separate library contexts, a provider loaded between the two being created, or providers which differ in what they advertise - in 4.0, for example, the default provider advertises SM2 where the FIPS provider does not. A deployment meeting the condition is also unable to negotiate the affected algorithms with legitimate clients, since the same stale count hides the corresponding certificates, so the misconfiguration is likely to be noticed. For that reason, and because the configuration is not the default, 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.

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
49
EG Risk 49/100

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)
Severity75% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.4% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
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.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.4%
EPSS %ILE
32nd
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 (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
0.4% 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; 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

Published

September 29, 2026

Last Modified

October 8, 2026

Advisory Details (5)

Auto-updated Sep 29, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github_commit.
GitHub commit

commit 00646e5085a0 (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit 00646e5085a0 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/00646e5085a0d12d29e0d2f9b9bc5f7111a50922
GitHub commit

commit 4135f553c9d3 (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit 4135f553c9d3 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4135f553c9d3ba4a09fe752f5d30af2a6a092b2e
GitHub commit

commit 9c54d209486f (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit 9c54d209486f — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9c54d209486f6b1ad79fe2179c40f13200fa4f61
GitHub commit

commit e87ed26b298a (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit e87ed26b298a — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e87ed26b298a74d8ba61a53e9c7bcd1acac6b814

Patch Availability(3)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntuopenssl-provider-legacy (3.5.5-1ubuntu3.6) @ resolute2026-10-29ubuntu
redhatopenssl-main-3.5.9-0.1.hum12026-09-30redhat
redhatopenssl3-main-3.5.9-0.1.hum12026-09-30redhat

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

(3 across 3 ecosystems)
Alpine:v3.21(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
openssl—
  • 3.4.0 up to 3.3.7-r2: fixed in 3.3.7-r2
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
openssl3.5.1-1 ... 3.5.7-1~deb13u2 (14 versions)
  • every version up to 3.5.7-1~deb13u3: fixed in 3.5.7-1~deb13u3
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
openssl3.5.1-1 ... 3.6.4-1 (24 versions)
  • every version up to 3.6.5-1: fixed in 3.6.5-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Additional Vendor Advisories

(1)

Vendors that published advisories for this CVE beyond the curated set above. Broader coverage but minimal per-row detail — click through for the original advisory.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 13× in last 7d / 87× 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.

Showing the most recent 100 of 113 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 13 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  2. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  3. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  4. 2026-10-29 18:33 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-29 18:33 UTCVendor advisory
  6. 2026-10-29 18:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  7. 2026-10-29 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  8. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  9. 2026-10-27 20:27 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-27 20:27 UTCVendor advisory
  11. 2026-10-27 20:27 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  12. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  13. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  14. 2026-10-25 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  15. 2026-10-25 14:06 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  17. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  18. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  19. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  20. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  21. 2026-10-20 09:53 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-20 09:53 UTCVendor advisory
  23. 2026-10-20 09:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  24. 2026-10-19 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  25. 2026-10-18 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-18 03:15 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  3. 2026-10-16 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  4. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  5. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  6. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  7. 2026-10-13 08:04 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-13 08:04 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-10-13 08:04 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  10. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  11. 2026-10-12 15:41 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-11 22:49 UTCVendor advisory
  13. 2026-10-11 22:49 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  14. 2026-10-11 19:27 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-11 16:42 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-11 14:02 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 17th percentile
  18. 2026-10-11 09:43 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-10-11 09:43 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  20. 2026-10-10 20:34 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-10 20:34 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-10-10 20:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  23. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  24. 2026-10-10 07:27 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-10 07:27 UTCVendor advisory
  26. 2026-10-10 07:27 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  27. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  28. 2026-10-09 18:18 UTCVendor advisory
  29. 2026-10-09 18:18 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  30. 2026-10-09 05:05 UTCEG score recompute
  31. 2026-10-09 05:05 UTCVendor advisory
  32. 2026-10-09 05:05 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  33. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  34. 2026-10-08 15:58 UTCVendor advisory
  35. 2026-10-08 15:58 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  36. 2026-10-08 01:33 UTCEG score recompute
  37. 2026-10-08 01:33 UTCVendor advisory
  38. 2026-10-08 01:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  39. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  40. 2026-10-07 14:17 UTCVendor advisory
  41. 2026-10-07 14:17 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  42. 2026-10-07 00:51 UTCEG score recompute
  43. 2026-10-07 00:51 UTCVendor advisory
  44. 2026-10-07 00:51 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  45. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  46. 2026-10-06 11:32 UTCVendor advisory
  47. 2026-10-06 11:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  48. 2026-10-05 22:23 UTCEG score recompute
  49. 2026-10-05 22:23 UTCVendor advisory
  50. 2026-10-05 22:23 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  51. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  52. 2026-10-05 09:12 UTCEG score recompute
  53. 2026-10-05 09:12 UTCVendor advisory
  54. 2026-10-05 09:12 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  55. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  56. 2026-10-04 20:01 UTCVendor advisory
  57. 2026-10-04 20:01 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  58. 2026-10-04 06:52 UTCVendor advisory
  59. 2026-10-04 06:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  60. 2026-10-03 17:46 UTCEG score recompute
  61. 2026-10-03 17:46 UTCVendor advisory
  62. 2026-10-03 17:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  63. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  64. 2026-10-03 04:40 UTCEG score recompute
  65. 2026-10-03 04:40 UTCVendor advisory
  66. 2026-10-03 04:40 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  67. 2026-10-02 15:32 UTCVendor advisory
  68. 2026-10-02 15:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  69. 2026-10-02 02:26 UTCEG score recompute
  70. 2026-10-02 02:26 UTCVendor advisory
  71. 2026-10-02 02:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  72. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  73. 2026-10-01 13:20 UTCVendor advisory
  74. 2026-10-01 13:20 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x8gv-f6w5-h79g · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  75. 2026-10-01 00:14 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-72897?
CVE-2026-72897 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on September 29, 2026. Issue summary: A TLS server that calls SSL_set_SSL_CTX() to switch a connection to a different SSL_CTX part way through a handshake may access memory beyond the end of an internal array if the replacement context knows about more provider signature algorithms than the context the connection was…
When was CVE-2026-72897 made public?
CVE-2026-72897 was made public on September 29, 2026: that is the date its CVE record's CNA, OpenSSL Software Foundation, gives for when the vulnerability was made public. The CVE record itself was published on September 29, 2026. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 8, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-72897 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-72897 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.4% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (32nd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-72897?
CVE-2026-72897 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (CISA-ADP / Vulnrichment enrichment; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-72897?
A fix for CVE-2026-72897 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-72897 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-2026-72897

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-72897?

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