CVE-2026-72897

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5—
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-09-29. CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 baseline 7.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: cisa-adp, epss, ghsa
Trending — Patch released this week
7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixSerious severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet.
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Issue summary: A TLS server that calls SSL_set_SSL_CTX() to switch a connection to a different SSL_CTX part way through a handshake may access memory beyond the end of an internal array if the replacement context knows about more provider signature algorithms than the context the connection was created from. Applications which never call SSL_set_SSL_CTX() are not affected.

Impact summary: A remote peer may be able to cause a small out-of-bounds read, and in some circumstances a fixed-value out-of-bounds write, on the server heap. This may lead to a Denial of Service.

CWE: CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write

Description: A TLS connection records how many certificate slots it has when it is created, taken from the SSL_CTX that created it: the built-in certificate types plus one slot for each provider TLS-SIGALG entry that context was aware of. That count sizes an internal array of per-slot certificate validity flags.

An application may replace a connection's SSL_CTX part way through the handshake by calling SSL_set_SSL_CTX(), most commonly from a servername callback in order to serve a different virtual host. Doing so did not refresh the recorded count. A provider signature algorithm's slot index is its position in the list of whichever context resolves it, so if the replacement context is aware of more of them than the original, an algorithm offered by the peer can resolve to an index beyond the end of the array. Processing the peer's signature algorithms then reads one four byte word past the end for each such algorithm and, where the word read is zero, writes a fixed value over it. A peer offering many of them can corrupt heap metadata and abort the process.

Only provider signature algorithms which occupy one of the excess slots, and which the server also has configured, have this effect. Codepoints the replacement context does not recognise are discarded without being resolved to a slot, and provider signature algorithms are usable only from TLS 1.3.

The two contexts must therefore be aware of different numbers of provider signature algorithms, which requires separate library contexts, a provider loaded between the two being created, or providers which differ in what they advertise - in 4.0, for example, the default provider advertises SM2 where the FIPS provider does not. A deployment meeting the condition is also unable to negotiate the affected algorithms with legitimate clients, since the same stale count hides the corresponding certificates, so the misconfiguration is likely to be noticed. For that reason, and because the configuration is not the default, this issue has been assessed as Low severity.

FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHhigh confidence
EG Risk
49
EG Risk 49/100CISA 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 computed
Severity75% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA SSVC: Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
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
0.3%
EPSS %ILE
16th
KEV
Not listed

CISA SSVCTrack 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). 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

September 29, 2026

Last Modified

September 29, 2026

Advisory Details (5)

Auto-updated Sep 29, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github_commit.
github_commit

commit 00646e5085a0 (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit 00646e5085a0 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/00646e5085a0d12d29e0d2f9b9bc5f7111a50922
github_commit

commit 4135f553c9d3 (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit 4135f553c9d3 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4135f553c9d3ba4a09fe752f5d30af2a6a092b2e
github_commit

commit 9c54d209486f (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit 9c54d209486f — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9c54d209486f6b1ad79fe2179c40f13200fa4f61
github_commit

commit e87ed26b298a (openssl/openssl)

Fix landed in openssl/openssl commit e87ed26b298a — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e87ed26b298a74d8ba61a53e9c7bcd1acac6b814

Patch Availability(3)

Vendor / EcosystemFixed in / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntuopenssl (3.0.2-0ubuntu1.30) @ jammy2026-10-04ubuntu
redhatopenssl-main-3.5.9-0.1.hum12026-09-30redhat
redhatopenssl3-main-3.5.9-0.1.hum12026-09-30redhat

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.

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 31× in last 7d / 31× 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.

  1. 2026-10-04 06:52 UTCVendor advisory
  2. 2026-10-04 06:52 UTCGHSA enrichment
  3. 2026-10-03 17:46 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-03 17:46 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-10-03 17:46 UTCGHSA enrichment
  6. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-10-03 04:40 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-03 04:40 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-10-03 04:40 UTCGHSA enrichment
  10. 2026-10-02 15:32 UTCVendor advisory
  11. 2026-10-02 15:32 UTCGHSA enrichment
  12. 2026-10-02 02:26 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-02 02:26 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-10-02 02:26 UTCGHSA enrichment
  15. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-10-01 13:20 UTCVendor advisory
  17. 2026-10-01 13:20 UTCGHSA enrichment
  18. 2026-10-01 00:14 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-01 00:14 UTCVendor advisory
  20. 2026-10-01 00:14 UTCGHSA enrichment
  21. 2026-09-30 11:06 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-09-30 11:06 UTCGHSA enrichment
  23. 2026-09-29 22:00 UTCVendor advisory
  24. 2026-09-29 22:00 UTCGHSA enrichment
  25. 2026-09-29 18:31 UTCEG score recompute
Show 6 more
  1. 2026-09-29 18:31 UTCGHSA enrichment
  2. 2026-09-29 17:30 UTCEG score recompute▲ 7.50
  3. 2026-09-29 17:28 UTCMITRE cvelistV5CVSS v3 → 7.5 · severity → HIGH
  4. 2026-09-29 16:24 UTCNVD update
  5. 2026-09-29 15:38 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-09-29 15:38 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-72897?
CVE-2026-72897 is a high vulnerability published on September 29, 2026. Issue summary: A TLS server that calls SSLsetSSL_CTX() to switch a connection to a different SSL_CTX part way through a handshake may access memory beyond the end of an internal array if the replacement context knows about more provider signature algorithms than the context the connection was…
When was CVE-2026-72897 disclosed?
CVE-2026-72897 was first published on September 29, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-72897 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-72897 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (16th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-72897?
CVE-2026-72897 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (CISA-ADP / Vulnrichment enrichment; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-72897?
A fix for CVE-2026-72897 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-72897 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-72897

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-72897?

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