CVE-2026-54874 — Excessive Memory Use Buffering DTLS Records for a Future Epoch
Issue summary: Receiving a DTLS record for a future epoch while a handshake is in progress causes OpenSSL to buffer far more memory than the record itself requires. Impact summary: A peer can use a small amount of network traffic to make an OpenSSL DTLS endpoint retain a disproportionately large amount of memory, which may lead to a Denial of Service. CWE: CWE-405: Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification) Description: While a DTLS handshake is in progress, a peer may legitimately have already moved on to the next epoch (for example, having sent its ChangeCipherSpec and Finished messages) before the local endpoint has processed the same transition, typically because of reordering on the underlying UDP transport. OpenSSL buffers such early records so that they can be processed once the local endpoint catches up. Buffering a record currently retains the entire read buffer it arrived in, which is sized to hold the largest possible DTLS record (around 16 kilobytes), rather than just the bytes that make up the record itself. Up to 100 such records may be buffered per connection. As a result, a peer that sends a stream of small forged records claiming to belong to the next epoch can cause an OpenSSL DTLS endpoint to retain around 1.7 megabytes of memory, despite sending only a small fraction of that amount of data over the network. An attacker therefore gains a memory amplification factor of around 1200, and can multiply the effect across as many associations as it is able to open, making this a remote memory exhaustion Denial of Service risk for DTLS servers. Since the memory retained per connection remains bounded, and any limit an application already places on the number of concurrent associations also bounds the total exposure, this issue has been assessed as Low severity. FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. OpenSSL 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.0, 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 4.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 4.0.2. OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.4. OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.8. OpenSSL 3.4 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.4.7. OpenSSL 3.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.0.22. Premium support customers only: OpenSSL 1.1.1 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.1.1zi OpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.0.2zr This issue was reported on 18 May 2026 by Amazon Web Services. The fix has been developed by Matt Caswell. -- cut (non-publishing metadata for internal use) -- Reported by: Amazon Web Services Fixed by: Matt Caswell
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- Technical severity (high)+6
- Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3
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.
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.
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)
- 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.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Openssl Openssl).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Openssl | Openssl | ≥ 1.0.2 and < 1.0.2zr≥ 1.1.1 and < 1.1.1zi≥ 3.0.0 and < 3.0.22≥ 3.4.0 and < 3.4.7≥ 3.5.0 and < 3.5.8≥ 3.6.0 and < 3.6.4≥ 4.0.0 and < 4.0.2 | Vulnerable | NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| Openssl | Openssl | ≥ 4.0.0 and < 4.0.2≥ 3.6.0 and < 3.6.4≥ 3.5.0 and < 3.5.8≥ 3.4.0 and < 3.4.7≥ 3.0.0 and < 3.0.22≥ 1.1.1 and < 1.1.1zi≥ 1.0.2 and < 1.0.2zr | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 3.9 | 3.6 | 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | CISA-ADP via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
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).
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · openssl/openssl
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- Fix documented
- CVSS changed · 7.5
- Source status changed · → Analyzed
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
6 on the record
- openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt
- github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/f52ffc11b90737ac89083909618dc2e1f42c561c
- github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/cc0c6710917cd5eec001b297355d2ba723505107
- github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4808b5d64176451f3d93d87d0ac9c81a9b13fb23
- github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7110cb2f75806d0bf809eb2f90790d477900be40
- github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/a0c8ec557d9cac078f032d76cdf684fe743eb382
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-84784 QUIC: Unbounded RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID Backlog 16d
- High CVE-2026-84782 DTLS Retransmits Handshake Messages From a Stale Buffer Offset 16d
- High CVE-2026-84783 Use-After-Free in X.509 Extension Cache Under Concurrent Use 16d
- Medium CVE-2026-75806 Unauthenticated and Undersized DTLS 1.2 AEAD Record Causes DoS 16d
- Medium CVE-2026-75805 NULL Pointer Dereference in CMP Client Revocation Response Handling 16d
- Low CVE-2026-77696 Timing Side-Channel in SM2 Signature Generation 16d
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 FIRST EPSS score.
- 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-2026-54874 is "Excessive Memory Use Buffering DTLS Records for a Future Epoch", rated High. It affects Openssl (Openssl); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. 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.