OpenPGP certification accepted from a subkey without certification authority
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 32/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.16% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-JAVA 1.86.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-JAVA 1.86 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP certificate API accepted a third-party certification or trust delegation from any component key of the issuing certificate, without requiring that component to have been granted the authority to certify. OpenPGPCertificate.getCertificationBy() and getDelegationBy() resolve a third-party signature by matching its issuer key identifier against every key of the third-party certificate, then verify the issuing component's binding chain and the signature itself; nothing checked that the issuing component carried the RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29 certification key flag (CERTIFY_OTHER) when the signature was created. A subkey bound only with SIGN_DATA - the online signing subkey of exactly the offline-primary arrangement those key flags exist to express - could therefore issue a positive User ID certification over an attacker-controlled identity, or a full-trust depth-one direct-key delegation of introducer trust, and the API returned it as a valid signature chain attributed to the third-party certificate. An application treating getCertificationBy(...).isValid() or getDelegationBy(...) as an identity or trusted-introducer decision would attribute the attacker's assertion to the offline primary key. The same held for a legacy RSA subkey bound only for encryption, whose algorithm is nonetheless able to sign. This does not forge the primary key's signature or recover any private key; it promotes an already-compromised restricted subkey to the primary key's identity-issuing authority, defeating the containment the key-flag separation provides. A third-party certification or delegation is now attributed to the issuing certificate only when the component key that made it is the primary key, or is a subkey holding CERTIFY_OTHER when the signature was created, so certification-capable subkeys continue to be accepted; primary keys are accepted whatever their key flags say, since a primary key is certification-capable by construction and certificates carrying no key flags subpacket at all are common. Third-party revocations are deliberately outside the rule, since declining to honour one would keep trust alive rather than withdraw it.
- Published
- Oct 3, 2026
- Updated
- Oct 6, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.1% · 5th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-285
Report tools
Action score
32
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 32 / 40 · 8.2 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.1%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · bcorg
- 8.2
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (bcorg). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-JAVA
- 1.81 and later · before 1.86affected · maven
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | bouncycastle | from 0 | — |
| Debian:14 | bouncycastle | before 1.86-1 | 1.86-1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | bouncycastle | before 1.86-1.1 | 1.86-1.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Development Tools 15 SP7 | bouncycastle | before 1.86-150200.3.41.1 | 1.86-150200.3.41.1 |
Same product
legion of the bouncy castle inc.: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2025-14813GOSTCTR implementation unable to process more than 255 blocks correctly37Monitor
- CVE-2026-71885MLS X.509 credential not bound to the LeafNode signature key36Monitor
- CVE-2026-5598Non-constant time comparisons risk private key leakage in FrodoKEM.35Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-18036Oct 2, 2026 · NTRU leaks private key information by reducing secret values with a non-constant-time integer division32Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-18040Oct 3, 2026 · HQC leaks private key information through secret-indexed GF(2^8) tables and a secret-dependent fixed-weight sampler23Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-71887Oct 3, 2026 · OpenPGP data signature accepted from a signing subkey without cross-certification32Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-JAVA | 1.86 | Vendor (CNA) |
| debian:bouncycastle | 1.86-1 · Debian:14 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:bouncycastle | 1.86-1.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:bouncycastle | 1.86-150200.3.41.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Development Tools 15 SP7 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
- Published
- Fix recordedsame day
- TodayOct 24, 2026+21 d
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
- Bhargava Shastryreporter
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- Integrity
- Availability
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-285 · Improper AuthorizationCVSS vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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:Amber
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLsCAPEC-1likelihood: High · High
- Cross Zone ScriptingCAPEC-104likelihood: Medium · High
- Directory IndexingCAPEC-127likelihood: High · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
- Using Malicious FilesCAPEC-17likelihood: High · Very High
- Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data TokensCAPEC-39likelihood: High · Medium
- Bypassing ATA Password SecurityCAPEC-402
- Buffer Overflow via Symbolic LinksCAPEC-45likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
- Data from Local SystemT1005
- Query RegistryT1012
- File and Directory DiscoveryT1083
- Access Token Manipulation:Token Impersonation/TheftT1134.001
- Use Alternate Authentication Material:Web Session CookieT1550.004
- Unsecured Credentials: Credentials in RegistryT1552.002
- Impair Defenses:Impair Command History LoggingT1562.003
- Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data ManipulationT1565.002
- Hijack Execution Flow: Executable Installer File Permissions WeaknessT1574.005
- Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment VariableT1574.007
- Hijack Execution Flow: ServicesFile Permissions WeaknessT1574.010
Change log
- SSVC exploitation— → none
- Exploit maturity— → none
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.