Issue summary: A malicious remote peer may flood the local QUIC
stack with NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames by avoiding a limit check on
how many connection IDs the remote QUIC stack can use.
Impact summary: The local QUIC stack sends a RETIRE_CONN_ID frame
for every NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame it receives. The RETIRE_CONN_ID
frame is dispatched via the Control Frame Queue (CFQ). If the remote
peer also withholds ACKs, then it can force the local stack
to allocate ~400MB (depending on ACK delay).
CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Description: RFC 9000 sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 [1] describe the mechanism
by which a remote peer can notify the local QUIC stack to change the
destination connection ID (a.k.a. CID) the local stack uses to
identify the connection at the remote peer. Each CID is associated
with a sequence number. The sequence number is transmitted
in NEW_CONNECTION_ID and RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames to identify the CID
which is being either associated with a connection or retired.
The remote peer sends a NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame to let the local stack know
a new CID is being associated with an existing connection. The
NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame carries the new CID, its sequence number, and the
retire-prior-to number. The retire-prior-to identifies existing
CIDs that are to be retired. The local QUIC stack must send a
RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID for every destination CID whose sequence number
is less than retire-prior-to. The CID becomes retired after the
local stack receives an ACK for its RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame.
Although the OpenSSL QUIC stack supports at most one destination CID
for every connection, it can be tricked into processing more than
one RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame per connection. The OpenSSL QUIC
stack currently retires the destination CID as soon as it receives
the NEW_CONNECTION_ID, while in fact the destination CID must
be retired after an ACK for the RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame is received.
Correcting the flawed logic also fixes the backlog growth.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000#name-issuing-connection-ids
FIPS impact: no
The FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC implementation is outside of
the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
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 2026-10-29). 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