CVE Intelligence
High Cryptography

CVE-2026-5466 — wc_VerifyEccsiHash missing sanity check

wolfSSL's ECCSI signature verifier `wc_VerifyEccsiHash` decodes the `r` and `s` scalars from the signature blob via `mp_read_unsigned_bin` with no check that they lie in `[1, q-1]`. A crafted forged signature could verify against any message for any identity, using only publicly-known constants.

Published Apr 10, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: wolfSSL

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

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 14, 2026
Affects
wolfSSL
Wolfssl
CVSS base
8.1
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
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

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

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

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 (wolfSSL Wolfssl).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. 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
wolfSSL Wolfssl < 5.9.1 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
wolfSSL Wolfssl < 5.9.1 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

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

Attack vector
Adjacent
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
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
7.6 CVSS 4.0 High — — facts@wolfssl.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.6 CVSS 4.0 High — — wolfSSL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
8.1 CVSS 3.1 High 2.8 5.2 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.18%

Detection

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

  • Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
network IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · wolfssl/wolfssl
    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
  • CVSS changed · 8.1
    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
    Apr 10, 2026 · wolfSSL

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

1 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-6331 HMAC zero-length tag forgery in EVP_DigestVerifyFinal Jun 25, 2026
  • CVE-2026-8720 HMAC-BLAKE2 final discards message when key length exceeds block size Jun 25, 2026
  • CVE-2026-7532 iPAddress name constraints not enforced when WOLFSSL_IP_ALT_NAME is undefined Jun 25, 2026
  • CVE-2026-7511 PKCS7_verify signer confusion allows forged signatures to be accepted Jun 25, 2026
  • CVE-2026-6329 PKCS#12 MAC verification uses attacker-controlled comparison length Jun 25, 2026
  • CVE-2026-6325 Out-of-bounds write in SetSuitesHashSigAlgo on oversized signature algorithms list Jun 25, 2026

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 fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • 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-2026-5466 is "wc_VerifyEccsiHash missing sanity check", rated High. It affects Wolfssl (wolfSSL); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.1 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.