Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-hvc7-763r-4f3h CVE-2026-74877 PYSEC-2026-3743

openssl-encrypt has no owner verification on key revocation — any client can revoke any key

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.45%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.20% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
1.4.0
Upgrade openssl-encrypt to this version or later

Description

Summary

The revoke_key method in openssl_encrypt_server/modules/keyserver/service.py at lines 195-270 accepts a client_id parameter but never verifies that the requesting client is the same as key.owner_client_id.

Impact

Any authenticated client can revoke any other client's key, as long as they provide a valid revocation signature. While the signature requirement mitigates this somewhat (you need the private key to sign), the lack of ownership check is a defense-in-depth gap.

Recommended Fix

  • Add an ownership check: verify client_id == key.owner_client_id before allowing revocation
  • Return 403 Forbidden if the requesting client does not own the key

Fix

Fixed in commit 05e45f3 on branch releases/1.4.x — added documentation that ML-DSA signature verification IS the cryptographic ownership check; added info-level logging on successful verification.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openssl-encrypt
< 1.4.0
1.4.0

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.

openssl-encrypt PyPI → 1.4.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "openssl-encrypt>=1.4.0"
poetry
poetry add "openssl-encrypt>=1.4.0"
uv
uv add "openssl-encrypt>=1.4.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Unreported

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • 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. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
PYSEC-2026-3803
openssl_encrypt before 1.4.9 fails to validate KDF cost parameters in encrypted file metadata and keystore headers, allowing attackers to trigger unbounded…
High Also affects openssl-encrypt
PYSEC-2026-3965
openssl_encrypt before 1.4.9 fails to validate the memory_cost parameter from identity file protection blocks, allowing attackers to trigger out-of-memory…
Medium Also affects openssl-encrypt
PYSEC-2026-3802
openssl_encrypt before 1.4.9 executes untrusted third-party plugins with insufficient controls: the plugin signature policy defaulted to WARN, so an…
High Also affects openssl-encrypt
PYSEC-2026-3801
openssl_encrypt (pip package openssl-encrypt) before 1.4.9 contains two weaknesses in the portable USB drive feature, whose threat model treats the removable…
Low Also affects openssl-encrypt
PYSEC-2026-3800
openssl_encrypt (pip: openssl-encrypt) versions before 1.4.9 contain a path traversal flaw in PluginSandbox._is_safe_path, which authorized file access using a…
Medium Also affects openssl-encrypt
PYSEC-2026-3964
openssl_encrypt (pip package openssl-encrypt) versions <= 1.4.8 do not redact the keyserver bearer token passed as the positional argument to 'keyserver…
Low Also affects openssl-encrypt
PYSEC-2026-3799
openssl_encrypt (pip: openssl-encrypt) versions <= 1.4.8 use suffix-tolerant fingerprint matching in enroll_trust_key when binding a plugin-signing trust…
High Also affects openssl-encrypt
PYSEC-2026-3781
openssl_encrypt before 1.4.9 fails to prevent namespace collisions between own identities and contacts in IdentityStore, allowing attackers to create shadowed…
Critical Also affects openssl-encrypt
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