In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).
CVE-2026-71888
This high-severity CVE scores 8.7 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.1% (1st percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). GitHub Security Advisory data not yet ingested — confidence will rise once GHSA publishes (typical lag: hours to days for open-source ecosystem CVEs; never for infrastructure-only CVEs).
- High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
An upstream fix is merged but not yet released — mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation) until the release ships, then apply it.
- CVSS v3
- 8.7
- EG Score
- 8.7HIGHmedium confidence
- EG Risk
- 44EG Risk 44/100CISA SSVC
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).
How it’s computedSeverity87% × 45%Exploitation0% × 40%Automatability30% × 15%CISA SSVC: Track at low or medium mission impact; Track or Attend at high (mission-essential systems).Action: An upstream fix is merged but not yet in a tagged release. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high until it ships, then apply the release. - EPSS PROB
- 0.1%
- EPSS %ILE
- 1st
- KEV
- Not listed
CISA SSVCTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track or Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
An upstream fix is merged but not yet in a tagged release. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high until it ships, then apply the release.
Exploitation none (no KEV listing, exploit record or EPSS ≥ 50%) · Automatable unknown (not published for this CVE) · Technical impact partial (CVSS below 9.0). Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it: high means the affected system is essential to your organisation's mission, or its compromise could cause irreversible harm to people. CISA's decision table
Published
October 3, 2026
Last Modified
October 3, 2026
Advisory Details (2)
Auto-updated Oct 3, 2026commit dcb683b32b44 (bcgit/bc-java)
Fix landed in bcgit/bc-java commit dcb683b32b44 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/dcb683b32b440f1beb1d2276a34930164281fb95CVE‐2026‐71888 · bcgit/bc-java Wiki · GitHub
https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9071888Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-71888(1)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 7× in last 7d / 7× in last 30d)
Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. 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. Most recent first.
- 2026-10-04 08:07 UTCGHSA enrichment
- 2026-10-03 20:46 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-03 20:46 UTCGHSA enrichment
- 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-10-03 09:25 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-03 08:46 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-03 08:44 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2026-71888?
When was CVE-2026-71888 disclosed?
Is CVE-2026-71888 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-71888?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-71888?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-71888
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-71888?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.