Bcrypt RubyApplication · Bcrypt Ruby Project
CVE-2026-33306
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedbcrypt-ruby is a Ruby binding for the OpenBSD bcrypt() password hashing algorithm. Prior to version 3.1.22, an integer overflow in the Java BCrypt implementation for JRuby can cause zero iterations in the strengthening loop. Impacted applications must be setting the cost to 31 to see this happen. The JRuby implementation of bcrypt-ruby (`BCrypt.java`) computes the key-strengthening round count as a signed 32-bit integer. When `cost=31` (the maximum allowed by the gem), signed integer overflow causes the round count to become negative, and the strengthening loop executes **zero iterations**. This collapses bcrypt from 2^31 rounds of exponential key-strengthening to effectively constant-time computation — only the initial EksBlowfish key setup and final 64x encryption phase remain. The resulting hash looks valid (`$2a$31$...`) and verifies correctly via `checkpw`, making the weakness invisible to the application. This issue is triggered only when cost=31 is used or when verifying a `$2a$31$` hash. This problem has been fixed in version 3.1.22. As a workaround, set the cost to something less than 31.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisAn arithmetic operation produces a value too large for its type and wraps around to an unexpected — often tiny or negative — number. That miscalculated value then drives a memory allocation or a bounds check, opening the door to corruption. The fix is checked arithmetic and validating sizes before they're used.
General guidance for the integer overflow class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Bcrypt RubyApplication
< 3.1.22CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped3.1.22
bcrypt-ruby >= 3.1.22
- Update the bcrypt-ruby gem to version 3.1.22 or later by running `gem install bcrypt -v '>= 3.1.22'`
- If using Bundler, update the Gemfile to specify `gem 'bcrypt', '>= 3.1.22'` and run `bundle update bcrypt`
- Verify the update was successful by checking the installed version with `gem list bcrypt`
- Test your application with cost=31 to confirm the integer overflow is fixed and proper key-strengthening occurs
- If unable to upgrade immediately, workaround is to set cost parameter to a value less than 31 (e.g., 30 or lower)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-33306 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-33306 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data