<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 16:24:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-14457 — RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-14457</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; OpenSSL&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)
enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,
a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and
also sends the typically omitted &amp;#34;signature_algorithms_cert&amp;#34; TLS extension.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of
an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Description: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests
that key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration
is to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or
signed by any convenient CA).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the
&amp;#34;signature_algorithms_cert&amp;#34; extension is handled reliably even without the
fix, and peer clients or servers that don&amp;#39;t support raw public keys may be
able to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding
certificate or its public key.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Deployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate
need to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FIPS impact: no&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation
is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; OpenSSL&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)
enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,
a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and
also sends the typically omitted &amp;#34;signature_algorithms_cert&amp;#34; TLS extension.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of
an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Description: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests
that key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration
is to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or
signed by any convenient CA).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the
&amp;#34;signature_algorithms_cert&amp;#34; extension is handled reliably even without the
fix, and peer clients or servers that don&amp;#39;t support raw public keys may be
able to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding
certificate or its public key.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Deployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate
need to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FIPS impact: no&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation
is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-14457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
