CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-84782

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Sep 29, 2026 | Modified: Sep 29, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.4 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
HIGH
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

Issue summary: The DTLS retransmission logic does not correctly handle a handshake message write that is suspended part-way through. The retransmitted message can be read past the message buffer and the retransmission overwrites the internal state the suspended write needs to resume correctly.

Impact summary: The retransmitted message can disclose a heap memory to the peer as plaintext handshake data or cause a crash and a Denial of Service when the read reaches an unmapped memory region.

CWE: CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read

Description: DTLS handshake messages can be written out in multiple fragments, and a write can suspend mid-message (returning WANT_WRITE) if the underlying transport temporarily cannot accept more data. While such a write is suspended, the DTLS retransmission timer may independently fire and ask the retransmission logic to resend an earlier, already-acknowledged-as-sent message from its retransmit queue.

The retransmission logic reused the same internal buffer and position tracking as the message that was still being written, without resetting the position back to the start of the message being retransmitted. As a result the retransmission was read starting from wherever the suspended write had left off, producing a mislabelled message whose body was leftover bytes from the other, larger message still in flight - content that was never meant to be sent at that point, and which could run past the end of the allocated buffer.

Separately, even when the retransmission is positioned correctly, allowing it to run to completion while another write is suspended overwrites the same shared bookkeeping that the suspended write depends on to resume. When the application later resumes the suspended write (via a subsequent SSL_read(), SSL_write(), SSL_accept(), or SSL_connect() call), it finds that bookkeeping in a state inconsistent with the message and aborts the process in a debugging build.

The fix resets the retransmissions read position to the start of the message before resending, and skips retransmission entirely whenever a handshake write is still suspended, deferring to the next call that resumes it instead.

FIPS impact: no The affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatpython-cryptography-main-50.0.0-1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatruby3-3-main-3.3.10-23.6.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatruby3-4-main-3.4.10-31.7.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatrust-bootupd-main-0.3.2-1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatchunkah-main-0.7.0-1.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatopenssl-main-3.5.9-0.1.hum1*
Red Hat Hardened ImagesRedHatopenssl3-main-3.5.9-0.1.hum1*
NodejsUbuntuesm-apps/jammy*
NodejsUbuntujammy*
OpensslUbuntuesm-infra-legacy/trusty*
OpensslUbuntuesm-infra-legacy/xenial*
OpensslUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
OpensslUbuntuesm-infra/focal*
OpensslUbuntujammy*
OpensslUbuntunoble*
OpensslUbunturesolute*
OpensslUbuntuupstream*
Openssl1.0Ubuntuesm-infra/bionic*

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

References