CVE-2026-45446 (GCVE-0-2026-45446)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-06-09 16:03 – Updated: 2026-06-10 07:48
VLAI
Title
Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes
Summary
Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD to the victim's application using these ciphers. AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only if the tag is verified succesfully. In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data. If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its all-zeros value. When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without resetting the key. AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.2. No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
Severity
4.8 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
SSVC
Exploitation: none Automatable: no Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
  • CWE-325 - Missing Cryptographic Step
Assigner
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
OpenSSL OpenSSL Affected: 4.0.0 , < 4.0.1 (semver)
Affected: 3.6.0 , < 3.6.3 (semver)
Affected: 3.5.0 , < 3.5.7 (semver)
Affected: 3.4.0 , < 3.4.6 (semver)
Affected: 3.0.0 , < 3.0.21 (semver)
Create a notification for this product.
Date Public
2026-06-09 14:00
Credits
Alex Gaynor (Anthropic) Dmitry Belyavskiy (Red Hat)
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
              "attackVector": "NETWORK",
              "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
              "baseScore": 4.8,
              "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
              "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
              "integrityImpact": "LOW",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "NONE",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2026-45446",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "no"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2026-06-09T18:48:41.903041Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-06-09T18:49:07.756Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "OpenSSL",
          "vendor": "OpenSSL",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "4.0.1",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "4.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.6.3",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.6.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.5.7",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.5.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.4.6",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.4.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.0.21",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.0.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Alex Gaynor (Anthropic)"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "remediation developer",
          "value": "Dmitry Belyavskiy (Red Hat)"
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2026-06-09T14:00:00.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV\u003cbr\u003e(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated\u003cbr\u003eData) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD\u003cbr\u003eto the victim\u0027s application using these ciphers.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD\u003cbr\u003emodes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated\u003cbr\u003ebut not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte\u003cbr\u003etag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only\u003cbr\u003eif the tag is verified succesfully.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn OpenSSL\u0027s provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is\u003cbr\u003ecomputed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.\u003cbr\u003eIf the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without\u003cbr\u003einvocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received\u003cbr\u003eciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its\u003cbr\u003eall-zeros value.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhen AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty\u003cbr\u003eciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not\u003cbr\u003eknow, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it\u0027s\u003cbr\u003enecessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without\u003cbr\u003eresetting the key.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since\u003cbr\u003eOpenSSL 3.2.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNo protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support\u003cbr\u003eeither AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must\u003cbr\u003eimplement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the\u003cbr\u003eciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\u003cbr\u003eissue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is\u003cbr\u003eoutside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
            }
          ],
          "value": "Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV\n(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated\nData) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.\n\nImpact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD\nto the victim\u0027s application using these ciphers.\n\nAES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD\nmodes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated\nbut not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte\ntag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only\nif the tag is verified succesfully.\n\nIn OpenSSL\u0027s provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is\ncomputed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.\nIf the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without\ninvocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received\nciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its\nall-zeros value.\n\nWhen AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty\nciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not\nknow, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it\u0027s\nnecessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without\nresetting the key.\n\nAES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since\nOpenSSL 3.2.\n\nNo protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support\neither AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must\nimplement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the\nciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is\noutside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "format": "other",
          "other": {
            "content": {
              "text": "Low"
            },
            "type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-325",
              "description": "CWE-325 Missing Cryptographic Step",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-06-10T07:48:14.092Z",
        "orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
        "shortName": "openssl"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt"
        },
        {
          "name": "4.0.1 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/25b32cd9d41d2bc01b6abc425bb4baf2c2236fdc"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.6.3 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/eec5e9bf0d867333b8495e456f5235d225798a68"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.5.7 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7fe3f33a3b3a4c487aa4dcdbc87057f66ffd2b85"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.4.6 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/daca0f48e4a69a2892a62262bad59e62a8a76598"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.0.21 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/71e2a5d263518cf5866043bd60ee4994d59e53a3"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
    "assignerShortName": "openssl",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-45446",
    "datePublished": "2026-06-09T16:03:32.120Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-05-12T14:34:06.277Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-06-10T07:48:14.092Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "epss": {
      "cve": "CVE-2026-45446",
      "date": "2026-07-22",
      "epss": "0.0021",
      "percentile": "0.11316"
    },
    "microsoft_vex": {
      "current_release_date": "2026-06-23T14:49:37.000Z",
      "cve": "CVE-2026-45446",
      "id": "msrc_CVE-2026-45446",
      "initial_release_date": "2026-06-02T00:00:00.000Z",
      "product_status:fixed": "1",
      "product_status:known_affected": "1",
      "product_status:known_not_affected": "5",
      "source": "Microsoft CSAF VEX",
      "status": "final",
      "title": "Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes",
      "url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/csaf/vex/2026/msrc_cve-2026-45446.json",
      "version": "3"
    },
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2026-45446\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"published\":\"2026-06-09T17:17:19.137\",\"lastModified\":\"2026-07-23T08:10:00.137\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Analyzed\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV\\n(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated\\nData) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.\\n\\nImpact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD\\nto the victim\u0027s application using these ciphers.\\n\\nAES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD\\nmodes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated\\nbut not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte\\ntag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only\\nif the tag is verified succesfully.\\n\\nIn OpenSSL\u0027s provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is\\ncomputed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.\\nIf the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without\\ninvocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received\\nciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its\\nall-zeros value.\\n\\nWhen AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty\\nciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not\\nknow, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it\u0027s\\nnecessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without\\nresetting the key.\\n\\nAES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since\\nOpenSSL 3.2.\\n\\nNo protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support\\neither AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must\\nimplement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the\\nciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.\\n\\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\\nissue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is\\noutside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\"},{\"lang\":\"es\",\"value\":\"Resumen del problema: Las implementaciones de AES-SIV (RFC 5297) y AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) manejan incorrectamente la autenticaci\u00f3n de AAD (Datos Autenticados Adicionales) con un texto cifrado vac\u00edo, permitiendo una falsificaci\u00f3n de dichos mensajes.\\n\\nResumen del impacto: Un atacante puede falsificar mensajes vac\u00edos con AAD arbitrario a la aplicaci\u00f3n de la v\u00edctima usando estos cifrados.\\n\\nAES-SIV (RFC 5297) y AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) son modos AEAD resistentes al uso indebido de nonce: aceptan una clave, nonce, AAD opcional (bytes que son autenticados pero no cifrados) y texto plano, y producen texto cifrado m\u00e1s una etiqueta de 16 bytes. Al descifrar, \u0027EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()\u0027 est\u00e1 documentado para devolver \u00e9xito solo si la etiqueta se verifica con \u00e9xito.\\n\\nEn la implementaci\u00f3n del proveedor de OpenSSL de estos cifrados, la etiqueta esperada se calcula solo cuando la funci\u00f3n de descifrado se invoca con datos no vac\u00edos. Si el llamador suministra AAD y luego llama a \u0027EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()\u0027 sin invocar la actualizaci\u00f3n del texto cifrado, lo que puede ocurrir cuando la longitud del texto cifrado recibido es cero, la etiqueta nunca se recalcula y a\u00fan mantiene su valor de todo ceros.\\n\\nCuando se usa AES-GCM-SIV, un atacante que env\u00eda AAD arbitrario, texto cifrado vac\u00edo y una etiqueta de todo ceros pasa la autenticaci\u00f3n bajo cualquier clave que no conozca, de una sola vez. Cuando se usa AES-SIV, para montar el ataque es necesario que la aplicaci\u00f3n reutilice el contexto de descifrado sin restablecer la clave.\\n\\nAES-SIV est\u00e1 implementado desde OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV est\u00e1 implementado desde OpenSSL 3.2.\\n\\nNing\u00fan protocolo implementado en OpenSSL mismo (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) soporta AES-GCM-SIV o AES-SIV. Para montar un ataque, las aplicaciones deben implementar su propio protocolo y usar la interfaz EVP. Tambi\u00e9n deben omitir la actualizaci\u00f3n del texto cifrado cuando llega un mensaje con un texto cifrado vac\u00edo.\\n\\nLos m\u00f3dulos FIPS en 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 y 3.0 no se ven afectados por este problema, ya que estos algoritmos no est\u00e1n aprobados por FIPS y el c\u00f3digo afectado est\u00e1 fuera del l\u00edmite del m\u00f3dulo FIPS de OpenSSL.\"}],\"affected\":[{\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"affectedData\":[{\"vendor\":\"OpenSSL\",\"product\":\"OpenSSL\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"4.0.0\",\"lessThan\":\"4.0.1\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"},{\"version\":\"3.6.0\",\"lessThan\":\"3.6.3\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"},{\"version\":\"3.5.0\",\"lessThan\":\"3.5.7\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"},{\"version\":\"3.4.0\",\"lessThan\":\"3.4.6\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"},{\"version\":\"3.0.0\",\"lessThan\":\"3.0.21\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]}]}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N\",\"baseScore\":4.8,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"HIGH\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"scope\":\"UNCHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"integrityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"NONE\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":2.2,\"impactScore\":2.5}],\"ssvcV203\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"ssvcData\":{\"timestamp\":\"2026-06-09T18:48:41.903041Z\",\"id\":\"CVE-2026-45446\",\"options\":[{\"exploitation\":\"none\"},{\"automatable\":\"no\"},{\"technicalImpact\":\"partial\"}],\"role\":\"CISA Coordinator\",\"version\":\"2.0.3\"}}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-325\"}]}],\"configurations\":[{\"nodes\":[{\"operator\":\"OR\",\"negate\":false,\"cpeMatch\":[{\"vulnerable\":true,\"criteria\":\"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\",\"versionStartIncluding\":\"3.0.0\",\"versionEndExcluding\":\"3.0.21\",\"matchCriteriaId\":\"EDB88756-EDFE-4886-A267-3F19342A6042\"},{\"vulnerable\":true,\"criteria\":\"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\",\"versionStartIncluding\":\"3.4.0\",\"versionEndExcluding\":\"3.4.6\",\"matchCriteriaId\":\"BF7E21E7-AEC0-4882-B1F1-2D056B506F22\"},{\"vulnerable\":true,\"criteria\":\"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\",\"versionStartIncluding\":\"3.5.0\",\"versionEndExcluding\":\"3.5.7\",\"matchCriteriaId\":\"6B6B9930-C549-4D88-9784-AF32CCDDB87A\"},{\"vulnerable\":true,\"criteria\":\"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\",\"versionStartIncluding\":\"3.6.0\",\"versionEndExcluding\":\"3.6.3\",\"matchCriteriaId\":\"D41B3C45-EC73-4DC8-989D-B2E2792E102F\"},{\"vulnerable\":true,\"criteria\":\"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:4.0.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*\",\"matchCriteriaId\":\"6E881B9A-1A0A-4BC0-8160-20C00561167D\"}]}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/25b32cd9d41d2bc01b6abc425bb4baf2c2236fdc\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"tags\":[\"Patch\"]},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/71e2a5d263518cf5866043bd60ee4994d59e53a3\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"tags\":[\"Patch\"]},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7fe3f33a3b3a4c487aa4dcdbc87057f66ffd2b85\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"tags\":[\"Patch\"]},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/daca0f48e4a69a2892a62262bad59e62a8a76598\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"tags\":[\"Patch\"]},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/eec5e9bf0d867333b8495e456f5235d225798a68\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"tags\":[\"Patch\"]},{\"url\":\"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"tags\":[\"Vendor Advisory\"]}]}}",
    "redhat_vex": {
      "aggregate_severity": "Low",
      "current_release_date": "2026-07-01T09:38:25+00:00",
      "cve": "CVE-2026-45446",
      "id": "CVE-2026-45446",
      "initial_release_date": "2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00",
      "product_status:fixed": "100",
      "product_status:known_affected": "51",
      "product_status:known_not_affected": "1",
      "source": "Red Hat CSAF VEX",
      "status": "final",
      "title": "openssl: Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes",
      "url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-45446.json",
      "version": "3"
    },
    "suse_vex": {
      "aggregate_severity": "moderate",
      "current_release_date": "2026-07-16T18:00:16Z",
      "cve": "CVE-2026-45446",
      "id": "CVE-2026-45446",
      "initial_release_date": "2026-06-13T02:17:26Z",
      "product_status:known_affected": "413",
      "product_status:known_not_affected": "385",
      "product_status:recommended": "138",
      "source": "SUSE CSAF VEX",
      "status": "interim",
      "title": "SUSE CVE CVE-2026-45446",
      "url": "https://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/security/csaf-vex/cve-2026-45446.json",
      "version": "12"
    },
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 4.8, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"MEDIUM\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N\", \"integrityImpact\": \"LOW\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"HIGH\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"LOW\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-45446\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-06-09T18:48:41.903041Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-09T18:48:27.735Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"reporter\", \"value\": \"Alex Gaynor (Anthropic)\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"remediation developer\", \"value\": \"Dmitry Belyavskiy (Red Hat)\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/\", \"content\": {\"text\": \"Low\"}}, \"format\": \"other\"}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"OpenSSL\", \"product\": \"OpenSSL\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"4.0.0\", \"lessThan\": \"4.0.1\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.6.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.6.3\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.5.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.5.7\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.4.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.4.6\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.0.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.0.21\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"datePublic\": \"2026-06-09T14:00:00.000Z\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt\", \"name\": \"OpenSSL Advisory\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/25b32cd9d41d2bc01b6abc425bb4baf2c2236fdc\", \"name\": \"4.0.1 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/eec5e9bf0d867333b8495e456f5235d225798a68\", \"name\": \"3.6.3 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7fe3f33a3b3a4c487aa4dcdbc87057f66ffd2b85\", \"name\": \"3.5.7 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/daca0f48e4a69a2892a62262bad59e62a8a76598\", \"name\": \"3.4.6 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/71e2a5d263518cf5866043bd60ee4994d59e53a3\", \"name\": \"3.0.21 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.2.0\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV\\n(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated\\nData) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.\\n\\nImpact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD\\nto the victim\u0027s application using these ciphers.\\n\\nAES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD\\nmodes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated\\nbut not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte\\ntag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only\\nif the tag is verified succesfully.\\n\\nIn OpenSSL\u0027s provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is\\ncomputed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.\\nIf the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without\\ninvocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received\\nciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its\\nall-zeros value.\\n\\nWhen AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty\\nciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not\\nknow, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it\u0027s\\nnecessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without\\nresetting the key.\\n\\nAES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since\\nOpenSSL 3.2.\\n\\nNo protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support\\neither AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must\\nimplement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the\\nciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.\\n\\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\\nissue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is\\noutside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV\u003cbr\u003e(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated\u003cbr\u003eData) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD\u003cbr\u003eto the victim\u0027s application using these ciphers.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD\u003cbr\u003emodes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated\u003cbr\u003ebut not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte\u003cbr\u003etag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only\u003cbr\u003eif the tag is verified succesfully.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn OpenSSL\u0027s provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is\u003cbr\u003ecomputed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.\u003cbr\u003eIf the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without\u003cbr\u003einvocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received\u003cbr\u003eciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its\u003cbr\u003eall-zeros value.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhen AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty\u003cbr\u003eciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not\u003cbr\u003eknow, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it\u0027s\u003cbr\u003enecessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without\u003cbr\u003eresetting the key.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since\u003cbr\u003eOpenSSL 3.2.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNo protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support\u003cbr\u003eeither AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must\u003cbr\u003eimplement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the\u003cbr\u003eciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this\u003cbr\u003eissue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is\u003cbr\u003eoutside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-325\", \"description\": \"CWE-325 Missing Cryptographic Step\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"shortName\": \"openssl\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-10T07:48:14.092Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-45446\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-06-10T07:48:14.092Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-05-12T14:34:06.277Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-06-09T16:03:32.120Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"openssl\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.2"
    }
  }
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.