CVE-2026-42768 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-42768
Vulnerability Scoring

3.7
/10
Moderate Risk

Exploiting CVE-2026-42768 requires specific conditions, leading to a moderate security impact.

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity: High
    Exploits require significant effort and special conditions.
  • Attack Vector: Network
    Vulnerability is exploitable over a network without physical access.
  • Privileges Required: None
    No privileges are required for exploitation.
  • Scope: Unchanged
    Exploit remains within the originally vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2026-42768 Details

Status: Analyzed

Last updated: 🕝 16 Jun 2026, 02:58 UTC
Originally published on: 🕔 09 Jun 2026, 17:17 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 6 days

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

CVSS3 Type

Secondary

CVSS3 Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

CVE-2026-42768 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-42768: Issue summary: The CMS_decrypt and PKCS7_decrypt functions are vulnerable to Bleichenbacher-style attack when an attacker is able to provide the CMS or S/MIME messages and observe the error code and/or decryption output. Impact summary: The Bleichenbacher-style attack allows an attacker to use the victim's vulnerable application as a way to decrypt or sign messages with the victim's private RSA key. The attack is possible in 2 variants. 1. The decryption API (CMS_decrypt(), PKCS7_decrypt()) is used without providing the recipient certificate. In this case OpenSSL iterates over every KeyTransRecipientInfo (KTRI) without stopping at the first success. An attacker who authors a message with two KTRI entries — the first one wrapping a real CEK under the victim's public key, the second with an arbitrary probe ciphertext — obtains opportunity to iterate the 2nd KTRI to get a valid PKCS#1 v1.5 padding if the error code of the application is available. That is a Bleichenbacher oracle (Bleichenbacher, CRYPTO '98): an adaptive-chosen-ciphertext side channel from which the attacker decrypts any RSA ciphertext to the victim's key or forges any PKCS#1 v1.5 signature under it. 2. When the decryption API (CMS_decrypt(), PKCS7_decrypt()) is provided with the recipient certificate, and the recipient is not found, a random key is substituted. An attacker who authors a message and is able to compare both error code and the result of the decryption, can mount a Bleichenbacher oracle. We are not aware of any applications that provide a remote attacker an opportunity to mount an attack described in these scenarios. We consider the existence of such application very unlikely, and for this reason this CVE has been evaluated as Low severity. To avoid these attacks, when RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 Key Transport is in use, the invoked EVP_PKEY_decrypt() will use the implicit rejection mechanism described in draft-irtf-cfrg-rsa-guidance. In previous OpenSSL releases the implicit rejection was explicitly disabled. The implicit rejection mechanism always returns a plaintext value, the symmetric key. This result is deterministic for the ciphertext and the private key. The length of the decryption result can happen to match the length of the key of the symmetric cipher that was used for the content encryption. When a certificate is not provided, the last RecipientInfo producing a key that looks valid will be used. It may cause getting garbage content on decryption. As a proper way to deal with this a recipient certificate has to be provided to identify the particular RecipientInfo for decryption. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, and 3.4 are not affected by this issue, as CMS and S/MIME processing happens outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-42768

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-42768 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2026-42768

CVE-2026-42768 presents a challenge to exploit due to its high attack complexity, but the absence of privilege requirements still makes it a viable target for skilled attackers. A thorough security review is advised.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-42768, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-42768, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: Low
    CVE-2026-42768 could lead to minor leaks of non-critical information without major privacy breaches.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2026-42768 poses no threat to data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-42768 does not impact system availability.

CVE-2026-42768 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-514

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Padding Oracle Crypto Attack CAPEC-463 An adversary is able to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key if a target system leaks data on whether or not a padding error happened while decrypting the ciphertext. A target system that leaks this type of information becomes the padding oracle and an adversary is able to make use of that oracle to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key by issuing on average 128*b calls to the padding oracle (where b is the number of bytes in the ciphertext block). In addition to performing decryption, an adversary is also able to produce valid ciphertexts (i.e., perform encryption) by using the padding oracle, all without knowing the encryption key.

Vulnerable Configurations

  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.0:beta1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.0:beta1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.0:alpha1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.0:alpha1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.4.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.0:beta1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.0:beta1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.0:alpha1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.0:alpha1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.5.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.6.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.6.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.6.0:beta1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.6.0:beta1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.6.0:alpha1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.6.0:alpha1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:3.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:4.0.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:4.0.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-42768: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2026-54236 – vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.23.1rc0, the fix for CVE-2026-22778, which introduced a saniti...
  • CVE-2026-54235 – vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.23.1rc0, ll temperature validation gates use comparison operat...
  • CVE-2026-54233 – vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.23.1rc0, vLLM's /v1/audio/transcriptions endpoint limits compr...
  • CVE-2026-54232 – vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.22.1, the vLLM Dockerfile is vulnerable to a dependency confus...
  • CVE-2026-53923 – vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). From 0.5.5 until 0.23.1rc0, integer truncation of tensor dimensions in vL...