CVE Intelligence
High Cryptography

CVE-2026-22866 — ENS DNSSEC Oracle Vulnerable to RSA Signature Forgery via Missing PKCS#1 v1.5 Padding Validation

Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is a distributed, open, and extensible naming system based on the Ethereum blockchain. In versions 1.6.2 and prior, the `RSASHA256Algorithm` and `RSASHA1Algorithm` contracts fail to validate PKCS#1 v1.5 padding structure when verifying RSA signatures. The contracts only check if the last 32 (or 20) bytes of the decrypted signature match the expected hash. This enables Bleichenbacher's 2006 signature forgery attack against DNS zones using RSA keys with low public exponents (e=3). Two ENS-supported TLDs (.cc and .name) use e=3 for their Key Signing Keys, allowing any domain under these TLDs to be fraudulently claimed on ENS without DNS ownership. Apatch was merged at commit c76c5ad0dc9de1c966443bd946fafc6351f87587. Possible workarounds include deploying the patched contracts and pointing DNSSECImpl.setAlgorithm to the deployed contract.

Published Feb 25, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.18%
ahead of 7% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Ensdomains
Ens-contracts and 1 more
CVSS base
7.5
High · 3 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Ensdomains Ens-contracts, Ensdomains Ethereum Name Service).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Ensdomains Ens-contracts version <= 1.6.2 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Ensdomains Ethereum Name Service ≤ 1.6.2 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
2.7 CVSS 4.0 Low — — security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
2.7 CVSS 4.0 Low — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
7.5 CVSS 3.1 High 3.9 3.6 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-347 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 3 reading(s) · max 0.18%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · ensdomains/ens-contracts
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 7.5
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Feb 25, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Ensdomains
every CVE for this vendor
Cryptography
same class
CWE-347
other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-22866 is "ENS DNSSEC Oracle Vulnerable to RSA Signature Forgery via Missing PKCS#1 v1.5 Padding Validation", rated High. It affects Ens-contracts (Ensdomains); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.18% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.