🎯 CVE-2026-2673 MEDIUM 6.5 🔥 EPSS 44% 🧪 PoC 🇪🇺 EUVD
📄 .md Alle CVEs anzeigen ✕

CVE-2026-2673 | 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 p

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.

Klassifikation & Betroffenheit:
OpenSSL OpenSSL 3.6.0 <3.6.2OpenSSL 3.5.0 <3.5.6openssl openssl *siemens simatic_cn_4100_firmware *
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') 🎯 Medium

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

🛡️ Empfohlene Mitigation: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Vollständige Definition bei MITRE ➔
🩹 Patch verfügbar (OSV):
🩹 2157c9d81f7b0bd7dfa25b960e928ec28e8dd63f (Commit) 🩹 85977e013f32ceb96aa034c0e741adddc1a05e34 (Commit)
📚 Referenzen & Quellen:
Ausnutzungs-Zeitleiste:
CVSS-Vektor-Analyse: 6.5
AV · Angriffsvektor Netzwerk
AC · Komplexität Gering
PR · Privilegien Keine
UI · Interaktion Keine
S · Scope Unverändert
C · Vertraulichkeit Keine
I · Integrität Gering
A · Verfügbarkeit Gering
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
Veröffentlicht:13.03.2026
Aktualisiert:17.06.2026 10:31
Assigner (CNA):openssl
EUVD-ID:EUVD-2026-12033
Quellen: 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank (ENISA) + 🇺🇸 NVD-Anreicherung · 24-h-Cache
CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.
🔴 Live Security Advisory & EPSS Exploit Radar

Zero-Day & Vulnerability Intelligence Hub

Echtzeit-Tracking mit EPSS Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeiten, Angriffsvektor-Decodern und KI-Patch-Anleitungen.

354k+ 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank
0 🔴 Critical im Radar
0 ⚠️ CISA KEV
0 🔓 Aktiv ausgenutzt
1 🧪 PoC verfügbar
📊 Historien-Charts — Criticals-Trend · Vendors · EPSS-Verteilung
🔴 Criticals pro Monat (12 M) 2025-09: 224 2025-10: 316 2025-11: 257 2025-12: 426 2026-01: 431 2026-02: 418 2026-03: 652 2026-04: 574 2026-05: 683 2026-06: 942 2026-07: 1333 2026-08: 1329 7.585 Criticals gesamt
🏢 Top-Vendor-Veröffentlichungen (6 M) Adobe Apple Google Linux Microsoft Oracle Corporation
● Adobe ● Apple ● Google ● Linux ● Microsoft ● Oracle
📈 EPSS-Verteilung (Messungen)
Tier2026-08-292026-09-06
≥90 %40
≥50 %40
≥10 %30
<10 %304300
Frühindikator · FIRST.org
Datenquellen & Methodik: Primärquelle ist die EUVD der ENISA (laufender Datenbank-Sync, alle 15 Minuten), abgeglichen mit dem CISA-KEV-Katalog und der NVD — Detail-Dossiers reichern fehlende Felder live per NVD an — mit Fallback auf CIRCL vulnerability-lookup (EU/Non-Profit, aggregiert CVE-, GitHub- und OSV-Advisories). Der CISA-KEV-Katalog (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, ~1.700 aktiv ausgenutzte Schwachstellen) wird bei jedem Sync vollständig neu geladen und kreuzreferenziert — filterbar über die KEV-Pille. CVSS 3.1 wird nach Ampel-Logik aus Verteidigersicht dekodiert; EPSS bezeichnet die 30-Tage-Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit (FIRST.org).
🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD 🇺🇸 NVD ⚠️ CISA KEV ⚡ EPSS
Ökosystem & Hersteller Bedrohungs-Matrix:
OpenSSL 1
Schweregrad & Status:
Hersteller (Datenbank-weit, 90.597 Einträge):
Quelle:
Schwachstellen-Kategorie (CWE):
🔍
6.5 MEDIUM
🇪🇺 EUVD
EPSS 44%
CVE-2026-2673 🌐 Netzwerk (Remote) 🔓 Keine Authentifizierung nötig
🧪 OpenSSL

CVE-2026-2673 | 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 p

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 ex

CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.