Skip to content

Issue summary: When using the low-level OCB API directly...

Moderate severity Unreviewed Published Jan 27, 2026 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Jan 29, 2026

Package

No package listedSuggest a package

Affected versions

Unknown

Patched versions

Unknown

Description

Issue summary: When using the low-level OCB API directly with AES-NI or
other hardware-accelerated code paths, inputs whose length is not a multiple
of 16 bytes can leave the final partial block unencrypted and unauthenticated.

Impact summary: The trailing 1-15 bytes of a message may be exposed in
cleartext on encryption and are not covered by the authentication tag,
allowing an attacker to read or tamper with those bytes without detection.

The low-level OCB encrypt and decrypt routines in the hardware-accelerated
stream path process full 16-byte blocks but do not advance the input/output
pointers. The subsequent tail-handling code then operates on the original
base pointers, effectively reprocessing the beginning of the buffer while
leaving the actual trailing bytes unprocessed. The authentication checksum
also excludes the true tail bytes.

However, typical OpenSSL consumers using EVP are not affected because the
higher-level EVP and provider OCB implementations split inputs so that full
blocks and trailing partial blocks are processed in separate calls, avoiding
the problematic code path. Additionally, TLS does not use OCB ciphersuites.
The vulnerability only affects applications that call the low-level
CRYPTO_ocb128_encrypt() or CRYPTO_ocb128_decrypt() functions directly with
non-block-aligned lengths in a single call on hardware-accelerated builds.
For these reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity.

The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected
by this issue, as OCB mode is not a FIPS-approved algorithm.

OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0 and 1.1.1 are vulnerable to this issue.

OpenSSL 1.0.2 is not affected by this issue.

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jan 27, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jan 27, 2026
Last updated Jan 29, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(0th percentile)

Weaknesses

Missing Cryptographic Step

The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-69418

GHSA ID

GHSA-78qr-24v5-7q73

Source code

No known source code

Dependabot alerts are not supported on this advisory because it does not have a package from a supported ecosystem with an affected and fixed version.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.