CVE-2026-45446

Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modes

MEDIUM
4.8
CVSS Score
Published: June 9, 2026 at 04:03 PM UTC
Updated: July 23, 2026 at 07:32 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorOpenSSL

Using OpenSSL by OpenSSL?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect OpenSSL - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM4.8
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.4%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD to the victim's application using these ciphers. AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only if the tag is verified succesfully. In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data. If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its all-zeros value. When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without resetting the key. AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.2. No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

3.0.0 ≤ v < 3.0.213.4.0 ≤ v < 3.4.63.5.0 ≤ v < 3.5.73.6.0 ≤ v < 3.6.34.0.0 ≤ v < 4.0.13.0.03.4.03.5.03.6.04.0.0
Affected range stops below 3.0.21, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.4.6, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.5.7, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.6.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 4.0.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

4.8MEDIUMCISA-ADP
Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
LOW
Integrity
LOW
Availability
NONE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-325

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card