CVE-2026-41678

ADVISORY - github

Summary

Summary

aes::unwrap_key() has an incorrect bounds assertion on the out buffer size, which can lead to out-of-bounds write.

Details

aes::unwrap_key() contains an incorrect assertion: it checks that out.len() + 8 <= in_.len(), but this condition is reversed. The intended invariant is out.len() >= in_.len() - 8, ensuring the output buffer is large enough.

Because of the inverted check, the function only accepts buffers at or below the minimum required size and rejects larger ones. If a smaller buffer is provided the function will write past the end of out by in_.len() - 8 - out.len() bytes, causing an out-of-bounds write from a safe public function.

Impact

Vulnerable applications using AES keywrap and allowing attacker controlled buffer sizes could have an attacker trigger an out-of-bounds write.

Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

ADVISORY - github

Out-of-bounds Write


GitHub

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

-

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)

CVSS SCORE

7.2high
PackageTypeOS NameOS VersionAffected RangesFix Versions
opensslcargo-->=0.10.24,<0.10.780.10.78

CVSS:4 Severity and metrics

The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).

The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.