Issue summary: Some non-default TLS server configurations can cause unbounded
memory growth when processing TLSv1.3 sessions
Impact summary: An attacker may exploit certain server configurations to trigger
unbounded memory growth that would lead to a Denial of Service
This problem can occur in TLSv1.3 if the non-default SSL_OP_NO_TICKET option is
being used (but not if early_data support is also configured and the default
anti-replay protection is in use). In this case, under certain conditions, the
session cache can get into an incorrect state and it will fail to flush properly
as it fills. The session cache will continue to grow in an unbounded manner. A
malicious client could deliberately create the scenario for this failure to
force a Denial of Service. It may also happen by accident in normal operation.
This issue only affects TLS servers supporting TLSv1.3. It does not affect TLS
clients.
The FIPS modules in 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. OpenSSL
1.0.2 is also not affected by this issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.2 is EPSS's lift toward 9.0 from its impact severity (EG Severity, CVSS 5.9 MEDIUM): a likelihood of exploitation, not impact.
- EG Severity
- 5.9 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 52% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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