CVE-2026-63073
Untrusted Sender DN Used as Format String in CMP Response Validation
No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 66th percentile. A vendor fix is available.
What to do
The vendor has published a fix. Version details are below where the sources state them.
What it is
From the CVE record
Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP response validation passed an unexpected response sender distinguished name directly as the format string to `ERR_raise_data()`. Impact summary: A malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint can crash a CMP client that enforces an expected sender or uses a pinned server certificate whose subject becomes the default expected sender. CWE: CWE-134 (Use of Externally-Controlled Format String) Description: When validating a received CMP message, ossl_cmp_msg_check_update() converts the peer-supplied sender distinguished name with X509_NAME_oneline() and passes it directly as the format argument to ERR_raise_data(). Percent characters survive the conversion, so a sender DN such as "CN=%s%n" reaches BIO_vsnprintf() as an attacker-controlled format string with no matching variadic arguments. This path is only reached when the caller configures an expected sender or pins a server certificate, which is the normal configuration for a CMP client validating server responses. Since the attacker controls the format string but none of the variadic arguments, such specifiers as %s and %n dereference or write through unrelated stack contents and crash the client. The reliable consequence is a denial of service, when the response comes from a malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint. There is no controlled memory write, arbitrary-address read, or reliable path to remote code execution. FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
In plain language
No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.
Exploitation
Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.
- CISA KEV
Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.
- Public exploits
No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.
- EPSS
1.2% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 66th percentile of scored CVEs.
Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.
Lifecycle
9 events over 17 days, from the signal feeds we watch.
- Patch availablerecord updated
- Record updated
- Record updated
- OpenVAS check added
- Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped, record updated
Affected products
And 1 more affected product. See all after sign-in
Technical detail
CVSS 3.1 vector
Open in the CVSS calculatorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Scored 9.8 by NVD.
How it is reached
- Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
- Attack Complexity LowNo special conditions — the attack can be reliably reproduced
- Privileges Required NoneNo authentication required — anyone can exploit this
- User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation
Scope
- Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself
Impact if exploited
- Confidentiality HighTotal information disclosure — all data in the component is compromised
- Integrity HighTotal loss of integrity — attacker can modify any data in the component
- Availability HighTotal denial of service — the component is completely unavailable
Weaknesses
ATT&CK techniques
Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.
Sources
Watch the software you run.
My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.
We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for OpenSSL, not every advisory.
A free account adds
- The full version matrix and every affected product
- Exploit links, proofs of concept and Metasploit modules
- Email alerts for the products you watch
- The same data over REST API, MCP and CLI