OpenSSLFramework / library

CVE-2026-42769

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-09
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 3.4.6 / 3.5.7 or later.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click Patch available

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 · unedited
Issue Summary: An error in the callback used to verify the certificate provided in a Root CA key update Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) message response rendered the certificate validation ineffectual, which could lead to escalation of credentials from the Registration Authority (RA) level to the root Certification Authority (root CA) level. Impact Summary: The Registration Autority could replace the root CA certificate for the CMP clients with an arbitrary root CA certificate. One of the parts of the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP), specified in RFC 9810, is Root Certification Authority (root CA) key Rollover, which is sent by the server in a message with type 'id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate'. As part of these messages, 'newWithOld' certificate, the new root CA certificate signed with the old root CA key, is provided, and verifying its signature is crucial for transferring the trust from the old CA key to the new one. The 'id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate' messages are expected to be processed with OSSL_CMP_get1_rootCaKeyUpdate(), that is expected to verify the 'newWithOld' certificate. A typo in the certificate chain building code led to adding an incorrect certificate ('newWithOld' instead of 'oldRoot') to the certificate chain, rendering the certificate verification process ineffectual (only the issuer name and the algorithm OIDs were verified by other parts of the verification code). An attacker who already has credentials that satisfy the CMP message protection checks can generate a new key pair and use a crafted self-signed certificate in its 'id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate' CMP messages which affected CMP clients would accept as a new trust anchor. Significant preconditions for the attack (having valid RA-level credentials) are the reason the issue was assigned Low severity. The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-295

The application does not properly validate the TLS certificate presented by the other side — skipping the chain, the hostname, or expiry — so an attacker with a forged or mismatched certificate can sit in the middle of a supposedly secure connection. It is a common trap in custom clients and misconfigured libraries. The fix is full certificate validation, and never disabling verification to make errors go away.

General guidance for the improper certificate validation 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
OpenSSLFramework / library
Affected:>= 3.4.0, < 3.4.6>= 3.5.0, < 3.5.7>= 3.6.0, < 3.6.3= 4.0.0

CVSS 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
High
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 3.4.6 / 3.5.7 / 3.6.3 or later
Fixed in 3.4.63.5.73.6.3
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

OpenSSL 3.4.6, 3.5.7, 3.6.3, or 4.0.1 (or later) depending on your current branch

  1. 1. Identify the currently installed OpenSSL version by running 'openssl version' or checking your system package manager.
  2. 2. Determine which OpenSSL branch (3.4.x, 3.5.x, 3.6.x, or 4.0.x) your system is using.
  3. 3. Consult your system's package manager or OS vendor for the availability of the fixed OpenSSL version for your branch.
  4. 4. Update your system package cache and upgrade OpenSSL to the appropriate fixed version: 3.4.6, 3.5.7, 3.6.3, or 4.0.1 or later.
  5. 5. After upgrading, verify the new version is installed by running 'openssl version' again.
  6. 6. If you have applications using OpenSSL, restart them or the service to ensure they load the updated library.
  7. 7. Test that your PKI/CMP-dependent services function correctly after the upgrade.
Caveat Minor: This is a security fix with no expected breaking changes; however, any CMP client code relying on the incorrect certificate chain behavior may need review

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $1,600. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-42769 — 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

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-42769 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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