Skip to content

GHSA-xv59-967r-8726 CVE-2026-44662

rust-openssl vulnerable to heap buffer overflow when encrypting with AES key-wrap-with-padding

Medium crates.io
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.17%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 6.62% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-122 Heap-based Buffer Overflow
Fix
0.10.79
Upgrade openssl to this version or later

Description

CipherCtxRef::cipher_update, CipherCtxRef::cipher_update_vec, and symm::Crypter::update incorrectly sized output buffers when used with AES key-wrap-with-padding ciphers (EVP_aes_{128,192,256}_wrap_pad). For a non-multiple-of-8 input, OpenSSL writes up to 7 bytes past the end of the caller's buffer or Vec, producing attacker-controllable heap corruption when the plaintext length is attacker-influenced.

This only impacts users using AES key-wrap-with-padding ciphers.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openssl
>= 0.10.0, < 0.10.79
0.10.79

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 crates.io → 0.10.79

cargo
cargo update -p openssl --precise 0.10.79

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-122: Heap-based Buffer Overflow

A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer was allocated using a routine such as malloc().

How to prevent it
  • Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
  • Architecture and Design: Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
  • 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.
  • 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].
  • Implementation: Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
  • Implementation: Do not use dangerous functions such as gets. Look for their safe equivalent, which checks for the boundary.
  • Operation: Use OS-level preventative functionality. This is not a complete solution, but it provides some defense in depth.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-phqj-4mhp-q6mq
rust-openssl: Potential out-of-bounds write in `CipherCtxRef::cipher_update_inplace` for AES-KW-PAD ciphers
High Also affects openssl
GHSA-xp3w-r5p5-63rr
rust-openssl has undefined behavior in X509Ref::ocsp_responders for certificates with non-UTF-8 OCSP URLs
High Also affects openssl
GHSA-pqf5-4pqq-29f5
rust-openssl: Deriver::derive and PkeyCtxRef::derive can overflow short buffers on OpenSSL 1.1.1
High Also affects openssl
GHSA-xmgf-hq76-4vx2
rust-opennssl has an Out-of-bounds read in PEM password callback when returning an oversized length
Critical Also affects openssl
GHSA-8c75-8mhr-p7r9
rust-openssl has incorrect bounds assertion in aes key wrap
High Also affects openssl
GHSA-ghm9-cr32-g9qj
rust-openssl: rustMdCtxRef::digest_final() writes past caller buffer with no length check
High Also affects openssl
GHSA-hppc-g8h3-xhp3
rust-openssl: Unchecked callback length in PSK/cookie trampolines leaks adjacent memory to peer
Medium Also affects openssl
GHSA-4fcv-w3qc-ppgg
rust-openssl Use-After-Free in `Md::fetch` and `Cipher::fetch`
Medium Also affects openssl
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