Issue summary: Processing some specially crafted ASN.1 object identifiers or
data containing them may be very slow.
Impact summary: Applications that use OBJ_obj2txt() directly, or use any of
the OpenSSL subsystems OCSP, PKCS7/SMIME, CMS, CMP/CRMF or TS with no message
size limit may experience notable to very long delays when processing those
messages, which may lead to a Denial of Service.
An OBJECT IDENTIFIER is composed of a series of numbers - sub-identifiers -
most of which have no size limit. OBJ_obj2txt() may be used to translate
an ASN.1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER given in DER encoding form (using the OpenSSL
type ASN1_OBJECT) to its canonical numeric text form, which are the
sub-identifiers of the OBJECT IDENTIFIER in decimal form, separated by
periods.
When one of the sub-identifiers in the OBJECT IDENTIFIER is very large
(these are sizes that are seen as absurdly large, taking up tens or hundreds
of KiBs), the translation to a decimal number in text may take a very long
time. The time complexity is O(n^2) with 'n' being the size of the
sub-identifiers in bytes (*).
With OpenSSL 3.0, support to fetch cryptographic algorithms using names /
identifiers in string form was introduced. This includes using OBJECT
IDENTIFIERs in canonical numeric text form as identifiers for fetching
algorithms.
Such OBJECT IDENTIFIERs may be received through the ASN.1 structure
AlgorithmIdentifier, which is commonly used in multiple protocols to specify
what cryptographic algorithm should be used to sign or verify, encrypt or
decrypt, or digest passed data.
Applications that call OBJ_obj2txt() directly with untrusted data are
affected, with any version of OpenSSL. If the use is for the mere purpose
of display, the severity is considered low.
In OpenSSL 3.0 and newer, this affects the subsystems OCSP, PKCS7/SMIME,
CMS, CMP/CRMF or TS. It also impacts anything that processes X.509
certificates, including simple things like verifying its signature.
The impact on TLS is relatively low, because all versions of OpenSSL have a
100KiB limit on the peer's certificate chain. Additionally, this only
impacts clients, or servers that have explicitly enabled client
authentication.
In OpenSSL 1.1.1 and 1.0.2, this only affects displaying diverse objects,
such as X.509 certificates. This is assumed to not happen in such a way
that it would cause a Denial of Service, so these versions are considered
not affected by this issue in such a way that it would be cause for concern,
and the severity is therefore considered low.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.7 is EPSS's lift toward 9.0 from its impact severity (EG Severity, CVSS 7.5 HIGH): a likelihood of exploitation, not impact.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 75% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-20). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it