CVE Intelligence
Medium Denial of service

CVE-2026-97873 — Legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE iteration count honoured unbounded in the raw JCA provider

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the raw JCA provider's legacy PBES1 (PKCS#5 scheme 1) and PKCS#12 PBE families ran their password-based key derivation with an iteration count taken from untrusted input without bounding it, so a small input could dictate an arbitrary amount of work before anything could be verified. The AlgorithmParameters implementations (PKCS12PBE and its object identifier aliases, and PBKDF1) accepted any count from an encoded PKCS12PBEParams or PBEParameter, narrowing a value beyond the int range with intValue(), and every Cipher, Mac and SecretKeyFactory in these families derived with whatever count it was given, including one decoded by another provider's AlgorithmParameters, as when javax.crypto.EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo.getKeySpec() decrypts a PKCS#12 PBE-protected private key with BC. Both the parameter parse and the derivations now reject a negative or over-limit count under the org.bouncycastle.pbe.max_iteration_count property (default 10,000,000) that already bounded PBKDF2 (CVE-2026-17508), and the parse rejects a count beyond the int range rather than narrowing it. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13.

Published Oct 3, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: bcorg

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
0.26%
ahead of 17% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.
BC-JAVA and 1 more
CVSS base
5.3
Medium · 2 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.

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 (Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-JAVA, Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-LTS-JAVA).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (denial of service), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-JAVA < 1.86 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-LTS-JAVA ≥ 2.73.0 and < 2.73.13 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
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
5.3 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — 91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.3 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — bcorg via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber (score shown at the top: 91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-770 · Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.26%

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).
  • Track CPU/memory spikes and availability drops correlated with request patterns.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSresource metrics

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · legion of the bouncy castle inc./bc-java, legion of the bouncy castle inc./bc-lts-java
    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 · 5.3
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Oct 3, 2026 · bcorg

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.
every CVE for this vendor
Denial of service
same class
CWE-770
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-71884 Packet CTR reports a full success length after the counter is exhausted 6d
  • CVE-2026-85515 OpenPGP message truncation not reported, bypassing the SEIPDv1 integrity check 12d
  • CVE-2026-71892 CMS key-transport recipient key-size validation never runs for RFC 9709 HKDF-derived keys 12d
  • CVE-2026-71890 MLS external commit can remove an arbitrary group member 12d
  • CVE-2026-71887 OpenPGP data signature accepted from a signing subkey without cross-certification 12d
  • CVE-2026-71889 PKIXCertPathReviewer does not apply X.509 name constraints to the target certificate 12d

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-2026-97873 is "Legacy PBES1 and PKCS#12 PBE iteration count honoured unbounded in the raw JCA provider", rated Medium. It affects BC-JAVA (Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.); 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 0.26% 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.