Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-6588-8gv4-xfgh BIT-dotnet-2026-32203 BIT-dotnet-sdk-2026-32203 CVE-2026-32203

Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-32203 – .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability

High NuGet
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.90%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 79.62% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-121 Stack-based Buffer Overflow
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
Fix
10.0.6
Upgrade System.Security.Cryptography.Xml to this version or later

Description

Executive Summary:

Microsoft is releasing this security advisory to provide information about a vulnerability in System.Security.Cryptography.Xml. This advisory also provides guidance on what developers can do to update their applications to remove this vulnerability.

A vulnerability exists in EncryptedXml class where a buffer overflow can give an attacker to the ability to perform a Denial of Service attack.

Announcement

Announcement for this issue can be found at https://github.com/dotnet/announcements/issues/391

CVSS Details

  • Version: 3.1
  • Severity: High
  • Score: 7.5
  • Vector: 7.5: AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H E:U/RL:O/RC:C
  • Weakness: CWE-121 CWE-20: Stack-based Buffer Overflow Improper Input Validation

Affected Platforms

  • Platforms: All
  • Architectures: All

<a name="affected-packages"></a>Affected Packages

The vulnerability affects any Microsoft .NET project if it uses any of affected packages versions listed below

<a name=".NET 10"></a>.NET 10

Package name Affected version Patched version
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml >=10.0.0, <=10.0.5; 10.0.6

<a name=".NET 9"></a>.NET 9

Package name Affected version Patched version
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml >=9.0.0, <=9.0.14; 9.0.15

<a name=".NET 8"></a>.NET 8

Package name Affected version Patched version
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml >=8.0.0, <=8.0.2; 8.0.3

Advisory FAQ

<a name="how-affected"></a>How do I know if I am affected?

If using a package listed in affected packages, you're exposed to the vulnerability.

<a name="how-fix"></a>How do I fix the issue?

To update the Using the System.Security.Cryptography.xml NuGet package, use one of the following methods:

NuGet Package Manager UI in Visual Studio:

  • Open your project in Visual Studio.
  • Right-click on your project in Solution Explorer and select "Manage NuGet Packages..." or navigate to "Project > Manage NuGet Packages".
  • In the NuGet Package Manager window, select the "Updates" tab. This tab lists packages with available updates from your configured package sources.
  • Select the package(s) you wish to update. You can choose a specific version from the dropdown or update to the latest available version.
  • Click the "Update" button.

Using the NuGet Package Manager Console in Visual Studio:

  • Open your project in Visual Studio.
  • Navigate to "Tools > NuGet Package Manager > Package Manager Console".
  • To update a specific package to its latest version, use the following Update-Package command:

Update-Package -Id System.Security.Cryptography.Xml

Using the .NET CLI (Command Line Interface):

  • Open a terminal or command prompt in your project's directory.
  • To update a specific package to its latest version, use the following add package command:

dotnet add package System.Security.Cryptography.Xml

Once you have updated the nuget package reference you must recompile and deploy your application. Additionally we recommend you update your runtime and/or SDKs, but it is not necessary to patch the vulnerability.

Other Information

Reporting Security Issues

If you have found a potential security issue in a supported version of .NET, please report it to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) via the MSRC Researcher Portal. Further information can be found in the MSRC Report an Issue FAQ.

Security reports made through MSRC may qualify for the Microsoft .NET Bounty. Details of the Microsoft .NET Bounty Program including terms and conditions are at https://aka.ms/corebounty.

Support

You can ask questions about this issue on GitHub in the .NET GitHub organization. The main repos are located at https://github.com/dotnet/runtime. The Announcements repo (https://github.com/dotnet/Announcements) will contain this bulletin as an issue and will include a link to a discussion issue. You can ask questions in the linked discussion issue.

Disclaimer

The information provided in this advisory is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Microsoft disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers be liable for any damages whatsoever including direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, loss of business profits or special damages, even if Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages so the foregoing limitation may not apply.

External Links

CVE-2026-32203

Acknowledgements

Ludvig Pedersen

Revisions

V1.0 (April 14, 2026): Advisory published.

Affected versions

NuGet

PackageVulnerableFixed in
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.6
10.0.6
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
>= 9.0.0, < 9.0.15
9.0.15
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
>= 8.0.0, < 8.0.3
8.0.3

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

System.Security.Cryptography.Xml NuGet → 10.0.6

dotnet
dotnet add package System.Security.Cryptography.Xml --version 10.0.6

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-121: Stack-based Buffer Overflow

A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).

How to prevent it
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
  • Architecture and Design: Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
  • Implementation: Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
  • Implementation: Do not use dangerous functions such as gets. Use safer, equivalent functions which check for boundary errors.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
  • Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
  • Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
  • Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7hqp-7c5m-4vq6
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-96960 - .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability
High Also affects System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
GHSA-c399-9853-6jmj
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-96959 - .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability
High Also affects System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
GHSA-r955-8q5j-3h83
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-96958 - .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability
High Also affects System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
GHSA-vrv5-2jg9-4mmr
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-96222 - .NET Spoofing Vulnerability
High Also affects System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
GHSA-23rf-6693-g89p
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-50648 – .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability
High Also affects System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
GHSA-mmjf-rqrv-855v
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-50527 – .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability
High Also affects System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
GHSA-8q5v-6pqq-x66h
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-50525 – .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability
High Also affects System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
GHSA-g8r8-53c2-pm3f
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-47304 – .NET Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
Critical Also affects System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor