CVE Intelligence
Medium

CVE-2026-84897 — wolfSSH server accepts server-to-client DH group exchange messages from an unauthenticated client, causing pre-authentication primality-test CPU exhaustion and key exchange role confusion

src/internal.c in wolfSSL wolfSSH through 1.5.0 admits the server-to-client Diffie-Hellman group exchange messages SSH_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_GROUP (31) and SSH_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_REPLY (33) when a server receives them from an unauthenticated client. IsMessageAllowedServer() applies no direction check to the key exchange message range: when the peer is keying and no particular message is expected, which is the state a server is in for the whole window after it processes the client's KEXINIT because nothing sets handshake->expectMsgId there, the function falls out of its expectation branch without a verdict and reaches a numeric bound that admits every message id from 30 through 34. A client that negotiates diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256 and then sends message 31 makes the server run the client-side handler DoKexDhGexGroup(), which validates the attacker-supplied group with two 8-round Miller-Rabin primality tests, one on p and one on (p-1)/2, on a value of up to 8192 bits. The handler then returns success: the server stores the attacker's prime and generator, generates a Diffie-Hellman key pair in the attacker's group, and sends the client-role message SSH_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_INIT (32) back to the attacker. Published RFC 3526 safe primes are the worst-case input and cost the attacker nothing to obtain. The primality validation was added in 1.5.0; versions from 1.2.0 through 1.4.22 admit the same message and enter the same client-role path without the primality cost. Message 33 is admitted as well, but on a server it is rejected before any cryptography because no public key check callback is registered, so it carries no comparable cost. Builds that define WOLFSSH_NO_DH_GEX_SHA256, which is implied by WOLFSSH_NO_DH or NO_SHA256, are unaffected.

Published Oct 7, 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 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
  • Technical severity (medium)+3
  • 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.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.3%
ahead of 21% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Wolfssh
Wolfssh and 1 more
CVSS base
5.3
Medium · 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
Yes
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)

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 (Wolfssh Wolfssh, wolfSSL wolfSSH).
  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, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Wolfssh Wolfssh ≥ 1.2.0 and < 1.6.0 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
wolfSSL wolfSSH ≥ 1.2.0 and ≤ 1.5.0 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
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
Low

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
6.9 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — facts@wolfssl.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.9 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — wolfSSL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
5.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium 3.9 1.4 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-372

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.30%

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).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · wolfssl inc./wolfssh
    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 · 5.3
    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
    Oct 7, 2026 · wolfSSL

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Wolfssh
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-372
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-83742 wstrncat() unsigned integer underflow leads to an off-by-one null write in wolfSSH on non-Windows platforms 8d
  • CVE-2026-81535 wolfSSH SSH client accepts unsolicited forwarded-tcpip channel opens without an authorization check 8d
  • CVE-2026-83540 wolfSSHd on Windows race condition leading to logon token reused across connections 8d
  • CVE-2026-16516 wolfSSH ECDSA host key curve not validated against negotiated algorithm 8d
  • CVE-2026-0930 Potential wolfSSHd Buffer out-of-bounds Read on Windows Handling Terminal Resize Apr 20, 2026
  • CVE-2025-15382 Client SCP Request Triggers Buffer Overread by 1 Byte Jan 6, 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 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-2026-84897 is "wolfSSH server accepts server-to-client DH group exchange messages from an unauthenticated client, causing pre-authentication primality-test CPU exhaustion and key exchange role confusion", rated Medium. It affects Wolfssh (Wolfssh); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.30% 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.