Skip to content
CVE Tracker
  • Newest CVEsPage
  • Recently added to KEVPage
  • Rising exploitation (EPSS)Page
  • Weekly digestPage
  • StatisticsPage
  • WatchlistPage
  • API documentationPage
  • MCP serverPage
  • Data sourcesPage
  • ChangelogPage
  • AboutPage
  • How it's builtPage
Back

CVE-2026-71885

MLS X.509 credential not bound to the LeafNode signature key

Critical9.2EPSS 0.20%
Published
Updated
Reserved
Assigned by
bcorg

Description

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the Messaging Layer Security (MLS, RFC 9420) implementation did not bind an X.509 credential to a LeafNode's signature_key. LeafNode.verify() checked a leaf's signature against the signature_key carried in the leaf itself, while the credential's X.509 certificate chain was stored but never parsed or validated, so the end-entity certificate's public key was never required to match signature_key as RFC 9420 sec. 5.3 requires. A party could therefore present another party's certificate as its credential while signing the leaf, and the enclosing KeyPackage, with an unrelated key, and be accepted under that other party's identity through KeyPackage.verify() and the Group leaf-validation path. In a deployment that admits external commits without an independent credential-admission check, an unauthenticated attacker could be admitted under a victim's X.509 identity, evict the victim (resynchronization compares whole credentials rather than signing keys), derive the current epoch, decrypt subsequent group messages, and send messages accepted as the victim. TreeKEM.LeafNode now requires the end-entity certificate's subject public key, in the cipher suite's signature encoding, to equal signature_key for an X.509 credential and rejects the leaf otherwise, including an empty chain or a certificate whose key type does not match the cipher suite; certificate-chain and identity validation to a trust anchor remain the application's responsibility per RFC 9420 sec. 5.3.1. Deployments using only basic credentials are unaffected.

Scores

CVSS scores of CVE-2026-71885, by who scored it
Scored byCVSSScoreVector
bcorgCNA (assigner)4.0Critical9.2CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber
NVDNVD · Awaiting Analysis4.0Critical9.2CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
EPSS (exploitation in 30 days)
0.20% · top 90% of all CVEs (6 Nov 2026)
CISA SSVC
Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical impact: total
Loading the EPSS history…

The list uses the assigner's score when there is one, then CISA's, then NVD's: Critical 9.2.

Weakness

Affected products

References (2)

Sources

The same CVE in the primary databases and aggregators, to check against.

Badge for a README or a ticket

CVE-2026-71885 badge
[![CVE-2026-71885](https://trackcve.app/badge/CVE-2026-71885.svg)](https://trackcve.app/cve/CVE-2026-71885)

Record last updated .