CVE-2026-2673

HIGHPre-NVD 6.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“▲” beside the score: it is higher than the CVSS score beside it.

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-03-13. CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 baseline 6.5; sources differ by 1.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1, EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory
Trending — 4 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-12033 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 6.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword.

Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares. This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups, if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by the server.

If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the 'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple was mutually supported.

As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction).

OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS 1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat' list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure. If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been more preferred, if included.

The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares, the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group.

The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the various desired groups and group 'tuples'.

No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies outside the FIPS boundary.

OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue.

OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released.

OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue.

CVSS v3
6.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
49
EG Risk 49/100

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.
Exploitation0.4% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.5%
EPSS %ILE
39th
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
0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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

Published

March 13, 2026

Last Modified

June 17, 2026

Advisory Details (5)

Auto-updated Aug 4, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github_commit.
Web page

oss-security - OpenSSL Security Advisory

http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/03/13/3
GitHub commit

commit 85977e013f32 (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit 85977e013f32 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/85977e013f32ceb96aa034c0e741adddc1a05e34
GitHub commit

commit 2157c9d81f7b (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit 2157c9d81f7b — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2157c9d81f7b0bd7dfa25b960e928ec28e8dd63f

Patch Availability(13)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntuopenssl (3.0.13-0ubuntu3.9) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
redhatcert-manager/cert-manager-operator-bundle:17919662592026-10-14redhat
redhatcert-manager/cert-manager-operator-bundle:17919704842026-10-14redhat
redhatcert-manager/cert-manager-operator-rhel9:17917882872026-10-13redhat
redhatcert-manager/cert-manager-istio-csr-rhel9:17914597592026-10-13redhat
redhatcert-manager/jetstack-cert-manager-rhel9:17913710692026-10-13redhat
redhatcert-manager/cert-manager-operator-rhel9:17890290762026-10-13redhat
redhatcert-manager/jetstack-cert-manager-rhel9:17914597112026-10-13redhat
redhatopenssl.exe2026-07-22redhat
redhatjbcs-httpd24-openssl2026-06-22redhat
redhatopenssl-1:3.5.5-3.el9_82026-06-01redhat
redhatopenssl-1:3.5.5-2.el10_22026-05-19redhat
redhatopenssl-main-3.5.6-0.1.hum12026-04-09redhat

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

(5 across 5 ecosystems)
Alpine:v3.22(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
openssl—
  • 3.5.0 up to 3.5.6-r0: fixed in 3.5.6-r0
—
Alpine:v3.23(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
openssl—
  • 3.5.0 up to 3.5.6-r0: fixed in 3.5.6-r0
—
Alpine:v3.24(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
openssl—
  • 3.5.0 up to 3.5.6-r0: fixed in 3.5.6-r0
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
openssl3.5.1-1 ... 3.5.5-1~deb13u1 (8 versions)
  • every version up to 3.5.5-1~deb13u2: fixed in 3.5.5-1~deb13u2
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
openssl3.5.1-1 ... 3.6.1-3 (21 versions)
  • every version up to 3.6.2-1: fixed in 3.6.2-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Additional Vendor Advisories

(1)

Vendors that published advisories for this CVE beyond the curated set above. Broader coverage but minimal per-row detail — click through for the original advisory.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 11× in last 7d / 45× 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 it from the CNA feed. 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). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 95 of 272 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 5 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 177 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-30 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  2. 2026-10-30 13:54 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-30 13:54 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-10-30 13:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  5. 2026-10-29 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 38th percentile
  6. 2026-10-28 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 38th percentile
  7. 2026-10-27 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 38th percentile
  8. 2026-10-26 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 38th percentile
  9. 2026-10-25 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 38th percentile
  10. 2026-10-25 14:39 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-24 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  12. 2026-10-24 03:14 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-24 03:14 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-10-24 03:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  15. 2026-10-23 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  16. 2026-10-22 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  17. 2026-10-21 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  18. 2026-10-20 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  19. 2026-10-19 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  20. 2026-10-18 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 03:51 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-17 16:34 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-17 16:34 UTCVendor advisory
  24. 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  25. 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
Show 70 more
  1. 2026-10-16 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  2. 2026-10-15 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  3. 2026-10-14 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 41st percentile
  4. 2026-10-13 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 41st percentile
  5. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 41st percentile
  6. 2026-10-12 16:18 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 20:00 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 17:13 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-11 14:45 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-11 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 41st percentile
  11. 2026-10-11 11:46 UTCOSV refresh
  12. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 41st percentile
  13. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 40th percentile
  14. 2026-10-08 17:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 40th percentile
  15. 2026-10-07 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 40th percentile
  16. 2026-10-06 15:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 40th percentile
  17. 2026-10-05 17:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  18. 2026-10-04 23:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  19. 2026-10-03 14:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  20. 2026-10-01 19:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  21. 2026-09-30 15:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  22. 2026-09-28 13:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  23. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  24. 2026-09-26 00:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  25. 2026-09-21 23:45 UTCOSV refresh
  26. 2026-09-20 20:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  27. 2026-09-18 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  28. 2026-09-17 19:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  29. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  30. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  31. 2026-09-13 16:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  32. 2026-09-12 15:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  33. 2026-09-11 14:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  34. 2026-09-10 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  35. 2026-09-08 22:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  36. 2026-09-07 16:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  37. 2026-09-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  38. 2026-09-04 05:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  39. 2026-09-02 19:10 UTCOSV refresh
  40. 2026-09-02 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  41. 2026-09-01 13:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  42. 2026-09-01 04:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  43. 2026-08-30 19:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  44. 2026-08-30 01:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  45. 2026-08-28 21:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  46. 2026-08-27 14:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  47. 2026-08-26 14:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  48. 2026-08-25 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  49. 2026-08-24 14:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  50. 2026-08-23 00:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  51. 2026-08-21 23:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  52. 2026-08-20 22:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  53. 2026-08-19 17:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  54. 2026-08-18 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  55. 2026-08-17 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  56. 2026-08-16 14:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  57. 2026-08-16 11:39 UTCEG score recompute
  58. 2026-08-16 11:39 UTCVendor advisory
  59. 2026-08-16 11:39 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  60. 2026-08-16 02:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  61. 2026-08-15 01:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  62. 2026-08-14 20:05 UTCVendor advisory
  63. 2026-08-14 20:05 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  64. 2026-08-14 07:41 UTCEG score recompute
  65. 2026-08-14 07:41 UTCVendor advisory
  66. 2026-08-14 07:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  67. 2026-08-13 22:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  68. 2026-08-12 22:39 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-08-12 22:39 UTCVendor advisory
  70. 2026-08-12 22:39 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-wj64-gh9j-xm82 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-2673?
CVE-2026-2673 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on March 13, 2026. Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword. Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is…
When was CVE-2026-2673 made public?
CVE-2026-2673 was made public on March 13, 2026: that is the date its CVE record's CNA, OpenSSL Software Foundation, gives for when the vulnerability was made public. The CVE record itself was published on March 13, 2026. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of June 17, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-2673 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-2673 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.5% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (39th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-2673?
CVE-2026-2673 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.5 (CISA-ADP / Vulnrichment enrichment; NVD's own analysis pending). EchelonGraph synthesises CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 + FIRST EPSS + GHSA into a combined EG score of 7.5 (HIGH).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-2673?
A fix for CVE-2026-2673 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-2673 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-2026-2673

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-2673?

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