PYSEC-2026-3793 CVE-2026-81685 GHSA-49h2-qmcq-wvvc
openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.9 fail to sanitize recovery-slot metadata in the desktop GUI, allowing attackers to inject control characters and line…
Low
PyPI
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Low · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.25%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.43% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
- Fix
1.4.9- Upgrade openssl-encrypt to this version or later
Description
openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.9 fail to sanitize recovery-slot metadata in the desktop GUI, allowing attackers to inject control characters and line separators into the irreversible-removal confirmation dialog. Attackers can craft encrypted files with malicious slot identifiers containing bidi overrides or line-separator characters to forge warning text and deceive users during file removal operations.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openssl-encrypt | < 1.4.9 |
1.4.9 |
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 → 1.4.9
- pip
pip install --upgrade "openssl-encrypt>=1.4.9"- poetry
poetry add "openssl-encrypt>=1.4.9"- uv
uv add "openssl-encrypt>=1.4.9"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 3.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
How to prevent it
- 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 the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
- Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
- Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
- 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.
References
Advisories
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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