CVE-2026-119192

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-11-10. The CNA's CVSS baseline 7.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-6qrw-m8cv-hcxf (GitHub Security Advisories)

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Forge: RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature forgery via non-canonical DigestInfo encoding

Summary

RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 signature verification (publicKey.verify() with the default scheme, also used by X.509 certificate and PKCS#7 verification) accepted non-canonical BER encodings of the DigestInfo, such as NULL parameters with content and non-minimal lengths. These leave attacker-controlled bytes inside an accepted DigestInfo, which allows signatures to be forged without the private key for RSA keys with a low public exponent (e=3). Fixed in node-forge 1.4.1.

Details

In lib/rsa.js, key.verify() with the default RSASSA-PKCS1-V1_5 scheme removes the padding, parses the recovered DigestInfo with the lenient BER parser asn1.fromDer() and checks its structure with asn1.validate() against digestInfoValidator. Neither requires a canonical DER encoding, so verification accepted, among others:
  • NULL parameters with content bytes (e.g. 05 40 <64 bytes>)
  • non-NULL or constructed values in the parameters position
  • non-minimal (long form) and indefinite lengths
  • non-canonical OID encodings (padded subidentifiers, trailing bytes)

These leave attacker-controlled bytes inside an accepted DigestInfo. For RSA keys with a low public exponent (e=3) this allows signatures to be forged without the private key (BERserk / Bleichenbacher-style forgery, see CVE-2014-1568).

RFC 8017 section 8.2.2 verifies a signature by encoding the expected EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 message and comparing it with the recovered one; section 9.2 defines the DigestInfo encoding.

The fix adds _encodeDigestInfo(), which DER-encodes the expected DigestInfo from the digest algorithm OID and the digest (with and without NULL parameters). Verification now requires the recovered DigestInfo to match one of these encodings byte for byte. The same change fixes GHSA-2g46-22mc-6gwp (CVE-2026-85393).

Patches

Fixed in node-forge 1.4.1. Verification now re-encodes the expected DigestInfo and requires a byte-for-byte match (RFC 8017 section 8.2.2).

Workarounds

Do not use RSA keys with a low public exponent (e=3) for signature verification.

References

  • https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8017#section-8.2.2
  • https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8017#section-9.2
  • CVE-2026-85393 / GHSA-2g46-22mc-6gwp (related, same fix)
  • CVE-2026-33894 / https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/security/advisories/GHSA-ppp5-5v6c-4jwp
  • https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2014-1568 (BERserk)

Severity

CVSS 3.1: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N (7.5, High) CVSS 4.0 (informational): CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N (8.2) Both versions rate this High. The severity rating follows CVSS 3.1.

Credits

Independently reported by Oren Yomtov (@orenyomtov, Fireblocks), Bronson Yen (Calif.io, in collaboration with Claude and Anthropic Research), Kamil Hałajda, @pzartech, @antonlissone and @Brechard.

Proof of concept

DigestInfo encodings accepted before 1.4.1 (SHA-256; OID = 06 09 60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 01, H = the 32-byte digest):

NULL parameters with content: 30 33 30 0F 05 02 BE EF 04 20 non-minimal DigestInfo length: 30 81 31 30 0D 05 00 04 20 (canonical form: 30 31 30 0D 05 00 04 20 )

Long-form lengths are accepted the same way for the DigestAlgorithm, OID, NULL and digest fields. A signature whose EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 block (00 01 FF..FF 00 || DigestInfo) contains such an encoding verified as valid: publicKey.verify(digest, signature) returned true. Content bytes in the NULL parameters (reports used e.g. 05 40 <64 bytes>) and similar slack give an attacker room to construct a forged signature for an e=3 key. With 1.4.1, verification throws "ASN.1 object does not contain a valid RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 DigestInfo value."

Regression tests: tests/unit/rsa.js, "canonical DigestInfo checks". They use an e=1 key, so the signature equals the encoded block, with one test per non-canonical shape (also indefinite length, constructed and non-NULL parameters, padded OID subidentifiers) and two tests that the canonical encodings with and without NULL parameters still verify. Included in the 1.4.1 release.

Impact

Applications that verify RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 signatures with node-forge: publicKey.verify() with the default scheme, and X.509 certificate and PKCS#7 signature verification, which use it. If the verifying RSA public key has a low public exponent (e=3), an attacker can forge a signature that verifies as valid, without the private key. Only keys with a small public exponent such as e=3 are practically affected.

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHhigh confidence
EG Risk
34
EG Risk 34/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity75% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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

Published

November 10, 2026

Last Modified

November 10, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-119192(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
npmnode-forge @ 1.4.1 (fixes <= 1.4.0)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
npm(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
node-forge—
  • every version up to 1.4.1: fixed in 1.4.1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 1× in last 7d / 1× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-10 16:46 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH
  2. 2026-11-10 16:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6qrw-m8cv-hcxf · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5

Related CVEs(same product + same CWE)

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-119192?
CVE-2026-119192 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on November 10, 2026. Forge: RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature forgery via non-canonical DigestInfo encoding Summary RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 signature verification (publicKey.verify() with the default scheme, also used by X.509 certificate and PKCS#7 verification) accepted non-canonical BER encodings of the DigestInfo, such as NULL…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-119192 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-119192 was published on November 10, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of November 10, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-119192?
CVE-2026-119192 has a CVSS base score of 7.5 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-119192?
A fix for CVE-2026-119192 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-119192 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-119192

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-119192?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs