CVE-2026-63072

Issue summary: OpenSSL CMS decryption sizes the key-unwrap output buffer based on querying the unwrapped key size, but the AES-WRAP-PAD unwrap primitive can write and cleanse more bytes than that query reports, causing an 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write.

Impact summary: An attacker who supplies a crafted CMS message can trigger a deterministic 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write when the victim decrypts it with CMS_decrypt(), corrupting the heap and typically resulting in a Denial of Service.

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

Description: The key-wrap OID is potentially attacker-controlled on the wire. CMS unwrapping allows both id-aesNNN-wrap-pad and id-aesNNN-wrap ciphers. An attacker can take a legitimate message and change a single OID byte to select the padded variant while leaving the message otherwise valid. Since the unwrap key is derived from the recipients private operation (ECDH key agreement or ML-KEM decapsulation), the RFC 5649 integrity check cannot pass, and the decryption fails with integrity failure.

The write is a fixed-size (8-byte), fixed-value (zero) heap overflow immediately past the allocation, requires no special configuration, and is reachable from the public CMS_decrypt() function. The consequence is a heap corruption leading to a Denial of Service. The fix in the CMS code sizes the unwrap output buffer for the worst case so a failed unwrap cannot write past the allocation.

FIPS impact: no

As the CMS code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.

Weakness

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

• For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.

• Be wary that a language’s interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

• Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

• Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.

• Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

• D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

• Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:

• Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.

• Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

• For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

• Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

• For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References

• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2a3dac874c8057c1f0186849bf1ede1ae7b6b756
• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/87784ad619af36b8807c2044b3940006fccc1e42
• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9530a5fd1aacaeccdced4478ea2340a480613335
• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9ec2f6d2ae2bcad907cf7ee38584855bafe4979a
• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/a0c8ec557d9cac078f032d76cdf684fe743eb382
• https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt