CVE-2026-33894
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 · uneditedForge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.4.0, RSASSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification accepts forged signatures for low public exponent keys (e=3). Attackers can forge signatures by stuffing “garbage” bytes within the ASN structure in order to construct a signature that passes verification, enabling Bleichenbacher style forgery. This issue is similar to CVE-2022-24771, but adds bytes in an addition field within the ASN structure, rather than outside of it. Additionally, forge does not validate that signatures include a minimum of 8 bytes of padding as defined by the specification, providing attackers additional space to construct Bleichenbacher forgeries. Version 1.4.0 patches the issue.
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 analysis · high confidenceThe node-forge library versions prior to 1.4.0 contain a flaw in RSASSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification that accepts forged signatures for low public exponent RSA keys (e=3). Attackers can construct valid signatures by stuffing 'garbage' bytes within the ASN structure rather than outside it (unlike CVE-2022-24771), and the library fails to enforce the minimum 8-byte padding requirement specified by PKCS#1, enabling Bleichenbacher-style forgeries.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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< 1.4.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if node-forge is installedRun 'npm list node-forge' or check your package.json dependencies for the 'node-forge' or 'forge' packageAffected if node-forge is present in the project dependencies with a version below 1.4.0
-
Determine the exact installed versionRun 'npm list node-forge --depth=0' to see the installed version numberAffected if The version displayed is less than 1.4.0 (for example, 1.3.0, 1.2.0, etc.)
-
Check if RSA signature verification is in useSearch codebase for usage of forge.pki.rsa.verify, forge.pki.verifyMessage, or any RSA signature verification using node-forgeAffected if The application uses node-forge to verify RSA signatures (RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5) on data or certificates
-
Identify if low public exponent RSA keys are in useExamine RSA key configurations or loaded keys to check the public exponent value. Look for keys with e=3Affected if RSA keys with public exponent e=3 (low exponent) are being used for signature verification in the application
You are affected if node-forge version is below 1.4.0 AND your application uses it to verify RSA signatures with low exponent (e=3) keys.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 · scoped1.4.0
Upgrade node-forge to version 1.4.0 or later, then audit all code paths that perform RSA signature verification to confirm the fix resolves the vulnerability without breaking existing functionality.
node-forge version 1.4.0
- Update the node-forge package to version 1.4.0 or later. For npm, run: npm install [email protected] or npm update node-forge
- For yarn, run: yarn add [email protected] or yarn upgrade node-forge
- For pnpm, run: pnpm add [email protected]
- Verify the installed version matches or exceeds 1.4.0 using your package manager's version check command
- Re-test your application's signature verification functionality to confirm forged signatures are now properly rejected
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-33894 — 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 sources- github.com
- datatracker.ietf.org
- mailarchive.ietf.org
- www.rfc-editor.org
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- bugzilla.redhat.com
- security.access.redhat.com
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-33894 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