Skip to main content

OpenSSL CVE-2026-2673

| EUVDEUVD-2026-12033 MEDIUM
Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade') (CWE-757)
2026-03-13 openssl
Medium
Disputed · 6.5 NVD
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Client initiates TLS 1.3 handshake
  2. Exploit
    Server misconfigures DEFAULT keyword in key exchange groups
  3. Execution
    Server selects weaker key exchange group
  4. Impact
    Attacker decrypts session traffic via cryptographic weaknesses

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures
ASVS 5.0
V11 - Cryptography Algorithm negotiation safety
Exploitation Conditions

OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server configured with 'DEFAULT' keyword in key exchange group settings, enabling downgrade to less preferred groups not in client's initial keyshares, particularly affecting hybrid post-quantum key exchange negotiation.

Impact

CVSS score of 7.5 (HIGH).

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker performs passive eavesdropping on TLS 1.3 connections to an OpenSSL server using DEFAULT group configuration. The server downgrades to a weaker key exchange group excluded from the client's initial keyshares, allowing the attacker to potentially decrypt the session using reduced cryptographic strength.

This Month Plan within 30 days. Why: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9).
Patch available 0.0% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Mar 13, 2026

OpenSSL and Microsoft products using the 'DEFAULT' keyword in TLS 1.3 key exchange group configurations may negotiate weaker cryptographic groups than intended, allowing network-based attackers to potentially downgrade the security of encrypted connections without authentication or user interaction. This affects servers that combine default group lists with custom configurations, particularly impacting hybrid post-quantum key exchange implementations where clients defer group selection. A patch is available to remediate this high-severity confidentiality risk.

Earlier versions of this analysis (1)
v1 Mar 13, 2026 - 16:57 CVSS 7.5

RemediationAI

A vendor patch is available. Apply it as soon as possible and verify the fix.

Affected VersionsENISA

OpenSSL 3.6.0 <3.6.2
OpenSSL 3.5.0 <3.5.6

Affected Packages

euvd openssl fix: 3.5.6, 3.6.2

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 1 package in euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

This vulnerability is classified as Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade') (CWE-757).

Know when OpenSSL gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Sources disagree (Low–High)
NVD PRIMARY 6.5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
SUSE 7.5 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Red Hat 3.1 LOW

vuln.today treats the vendor’s rating as authoritative. A higher third-party CVSS (e.g. CISA-ADP) is shown for transparency but does not drive the headline severity.

CVSS VectorNVD

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

Lifecycle Timeline

6
Severity Changed
May 18, 2026 - 20:22 NVD
HIGH MEDIUM
CVSS changed
May 18, 2026 - 20:22 NVD
7.3 (HIGH) 6.5 (MEDIUM)
CVSS changed
May 13, 2026 - 19:22 NVD
7.5 (HIGH) 7.3 (HIGH)
PoC Detected
Mar 17, 2026 - 18:16 vuln.today
Public exploit code
Patch released
Mar 17, 2026 - 18:16 nvd
Patch available
CVE Published
Mar 13, 2026 - 13:23 nvd
HIGH 7.5

DescriptionCVE.org

Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword.

Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares. This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups, if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by the server.

If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the 'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple was mutually supported.

As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction).

OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS 1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat' list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure. If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been more preferred, if included.

The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares, the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group.

The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the various desired groups and group 'tuples'.

No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies outside the FIPS boundary.

OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue.

OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released.

OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue.

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

CVE-2026-2673 presents notable security risk rated CVSS 7.5. Exploitation could compromise the security of affected deployments. A patch is available and should be applied as part of regular vulnerability management.

Business Impact: High
Compensating Controls

Apply vendor patch. If immediate patching is not feasible: (1) Implement network-level access controls to limit exposure; (2) Enable enhanced monitoring and alerting; (3) Apply principle of least privilege.

Threat Intelligence Overview

Threat Score
4.8/10
Composite threat intelligence
EPSS Score
0.0%
Top 95% exploitable
Threat Intel
1
1 source
Exploit
POC
Public exploit code exists
Data Quality
8 sources
Confidence: High
EUVD NVD CVE.org EPSS CISA Vendor GitHub VulDB

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity MEDIUM
CISA KEV No
Public POC Yes
EPSS 0.0%
Patch available Yes
Active threat Yes
Deciding rule
MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Out-of-Cycle
Exploitation· derived
Poc
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable· derived
Yes
Human Impact
High

Priority Score

62
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +32
PoC: +20
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: +10
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Information disclosure occurs when an application unintentionally exposes sensitive data that aids attackers in reconnaissance or directly compromises security.

CVE-2014-0160 HIGH POC
7.5 Apr 07

The (1) TLS and (2) DTLS implementations in OpenSSL 1.0.1 before 1.0.1g do not properly handle Heartbeat Extension packe

CVE-2021-3711 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Aug 24

In order to decrypt SM2 encrypted data an application is expected to call the API function EVP_PKEY_decrypt(). Rated cri

CVE-2014-0195 MEDIUM POC
6.8 Jun 05

The dtls1_reassemble_fragment function in d1_both.c in OpenSSL before 0.9.8za, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0m, and 1.0.1 before 1.0

CVE-2014-0224 HIGH POC
7.4 Jun 05

OpenSSL before 0.9.8za, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0m, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1h does not properly restrict processing of ChangeCiph

CVE-2016-0800 MEDIUM POC
5.9 Mar 01

The SSLv2 protocol, as used in OpenSSL before 1.0.1s and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2g and other products, requires a server to se

CVE-2015-0204 MEDIUM POC
4.3 Jan 09

The ssl3_get_key_exchange function in s3_clnt.c in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zd, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0p, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1k

CVE-2022-2068 HIGH
7.3 Jun 21

In addition to the c_rehash shell command injection identified in CVE-2022-1292, further circumstances where the c_rehas

CVE-2015-4000 LOW POC
3.7 May 21

The TLS protocol 1.2 and earlier, when a DHE_EXPORT ciphersuite is enabled on a server but not on a client, does not pro

CVE-2014-3566 LOW POC
3.4 Oct 15

The SSL protocol 3.0, as used in OpenSSL through 1.0.1i and other products, uses nondeterministic CBC padding, which mak

CVE-2016-2107 MEDIUM POC
5.9 May 05

The AES-NI implementation in OpenSSL before 1.0.1t and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2h does not consider memory allocation during a

CVE-2015-1793 MEDIUM POC
6.5 Jul 09

The X509_verify_cert function in crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c in OpenSSL 1.0.1n, 1.0.1o, 1.0.2b, and 1.0.2c does not properly

CVE-2022-3602 HIGH
7.5 Nov 01

A buffer overrun can be triggered in X.509 certificate verification, specifically in name constraint checking. Rated hig

Vendor StatusVendor

Debian

openssl
Release Status Fixed Version Urgency
bullseye not-affected - -
bullseye (security) fixed 1.1.1w-0+deb11u5 -
bookworm not-affected - -
bookworm (security) fixed 3.0.18-1~deb12u2 -
trixie vulnerable 3.5.4-1~deb13u1 -
trixie (security) vulnerable 3.5.4-1~deb13u2 -
forky vulnerable 3.5.5-1 -
sid vulnerable 3.6.1-2 -
(unstable) fixed (unfixed) -

SUSE

Severity: High
Product Status
SLES15-SP5-CHOST-BYOS-SAP-CCloud Fixed
SLES15-SP5-CHOST-BYOS-SAP-CCloud Fixed
SLES15-SP6-CHOST-BYOS Fixed
SLES15-SP6-CHOST-BYOS Fixed
SLES15-SP6-CHOST-BYOS-Aliyun Fixed

Threat IntelligenceMISP

CISA Advisories
Sources: CISA (public domain)

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy