Skip to main content

OpenSSL CVE-2026-28387

| EUVDEUVD-2026-19961 HIGH
Use After Free (CWE-416)
2026-04-07 openssl
Memory Corruption Use After Free Denial Of Service RCE OpenSSL
High
Disputed · 8.1 NVD
Share

Severity by source

Sources disagree (Low–High)
NVD PRIMARY
8.1 HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
SUSE
HIGH
qualitative
Red Hat
3.7 LOW
qualitative

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

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
High
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Lifecycle Timeline

4
CVSS changed
Apr 23, 2026 - 16:12 NVD
8.1 (HIGH)
EUVD ID Assigned
Apr 07, 2026 - 22:16 euvd
EUVD-2026-19961
Patch released
Apr 07, 2026 - 22:16 nvd
Patch available
CVE Published
Apr 07, 2026 - 22:00 nvd
N/A

DescriptionCVE.org

Issue summary: An uncommon configuration of clients performing DANE TLSA-based server authentication, when paired with uncommon server DANE TLSA records, may result in a use-after-free and/or double-free on the client side.

Impact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences such as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.

However, the issue only affects clients that make use of TLSA records with both the PKIX-TA(0/PKIX-EE(1) certificate usages and the DANE-TA(2) certificate usage.

By far the most common deployment of DANE is in SMTP MTAs for which RFC7672 recommends that clients treat as 'unusable' any TLSA records that have the PKIX certificate usages. These SMTP (or other similar) clients are not vulnerable to this issue. Conversely, any clients that support only the PKIX usages, and ignore the DANE-TA(2) usage are also not vulnerable.

The client would also need to be communicating with a server that publishes a TLSA RRset with both types of TLSA records.

No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the problem code is outside the FIPS module boundary.

Analysis

Issue summary: An uncommon configuration of clients performing DANE TLSA-based server authentication, when paired with uncommon server DANE TLSA records, may result in a use-after-free and/or double-free on the client side.

Impact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences such as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.

However, the issue only affects clients that make use of TLSA records with both the PKIX-TA(0/PKIX-EE(1) certificate usages and the DANE-TA(2) certificate usage.

By far the most common deployment of DANE is in SMTP MTAs for which RFC7672 recommends that clients treat as 'unusable' any TLSA records that have the PKIX certificate usages. These SMTP (or other similar) clients are not vulnerable to this issue. Conversely, any clients that support only the PKIX usages, and ignore the DANE-TA(2) usage are also not vulnerable.

The client would also need to be communicating with a server that publishes a TLSA RRset with both types of TLSA records.

No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the problem code is outside the FIPS module boundary.

Technical ContextAI

A use-after-free vulnerability occurs when a program continues to use a pointer after the referenced memory has been freed, leading to undefined behavior. This vulnerability is classified as Use After Free (CWE-416).

RemediationAI

A vendor patch is available — apply it immediately. Use memory-safe languages. Implement proper object lifecycle management. Use static and dynamic analysis tools to detect UAF patterns.

More in OpenSSL

View all
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-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-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
CVE-2014-3470 MEDIUM
4.3 Jun 05

The ssl3_send_client_key_exchange function in s3_clnt.c in OpenSSL before 0.9.8za, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0m, and 1.0.1 before
CVE-2017-3730 HIGH POC
7.5 May 04

In OpenSSL 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d, if a malicious server supplies bad parameters for a DHE or ECDHE key exchange then this

CVE-2016-8610 HIGH
7.5 Nov 13

A denial of service flaw was found in OpenSSL 0.9.8, 1.0.1, 1.0.2 through 1.0.2h, and 1.1.0 in the way the TLS/SSL proto

Same weakness CWE-416 – Use After Free

View all
CVE-2019-0708 CRITICAL POC
9.8
CVE-2015-5119 CRITICAL POC
9.8
CVE-2014-0322 HIGH POC
8.8
CVE-2012-4792 HIGH POC
8.8
CVE-2009-4324 HIGH POC
7.8
CVE-2015-0313 CRITICAL POC
9.8
CVE-2015-5122 CRITICAL POC
9.8
CVE-2013-2551 HIGH POC
8.8

Same technique Memory Corruption

View all
CVE-2015-5119 CRITICAL POC
9.8
CVE-2015-3113 CRITICAL POC
9.8
CVE-2011-2462 CRITICAL POC
9.8
CVE-2011-0611 HIGH POC
8.8
CVE-2014-0322 HIGH POC
8.8
CVE-2012-1889 HIGH POC
8.8
CVE-2012-4792 HIGH POC
8.8
CVE-2010-3333 HIGH POC
7.8

Vendor StatusVendor

SUSE

Severity: High
Product Status
Container private-registry/1.2/harbor-portal:1.2.0-1.8 Container private-registry/harbor-portal:1.1.2-2.17 Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/server-postgresql:5.1.3.6.18.1 Affected
Container suse/manager/4.3/proxy-httpd:4.3.17.9.76.9 Container suse/manager/4.3/proxy-squid:4.3.17.9.75.7 Container suse/manager/4.3/proxy-ssh:4.3.17.9.66.7 Affected
Container suse/manager/4.3/proxy-salt-broker:4.3.17.9.66.9 Container suse/manager/4.3/proxy-tftpd:4.3.17.9.66.8 Affected
Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/proxy-httpd:5.1.3.8.18.1 Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/proxy-squid:5.1.3.8.16.1 Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/proxy-ssh:5.1.3.8.16.1 Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/server-migration-14-16:5.1.3.8.16.1 Affected
Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/proxy-salt-broker:5.1.3.9.16.1 Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/proxy-tftpd:5.1.3.8.16.1 Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/server-saline:5.1.3.9.16.1 Container suse/multi-linux-manager/5.1/x86_64/server:5.1.3.8.16.1 Affected

Share

CVE-2026-28387 vulnerability details – vuln.today
Back

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