CVE-2026-63075

QUIC ACK-only Packet Retention Can Cause Memory Exhaustion

HIGH
7.5
CVSS Score
Published: August 25, 2026 at 01:00 PM UTC
Updated: September 11, 2026 at 09:30 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
HIGH7.5
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.6%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly sends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the QUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the connection. Impact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can cause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service through memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent QUIC connections. CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling Description: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet, there is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge that ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL implementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless. In and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and then drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the OpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames), and then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like legitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth on the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service. The fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only packet in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing the ACK-only packet metadata itself. FIPS impact: no The OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is outside the FIPS module boundary.

Affected

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

3.4.0 ≤ v < 3.4.73.5.0 ≤ v < 3.5.83.6.0 ≤ v < 3.6.44.0.0 ≤ v < 4.0.23.4.03.5.03.6.04.0.0
Affected range stops below 3.4.7, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.5.8, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.6.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 4.0.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitAutomatablePartial impact

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

CVSS

7.5HIGHCISA-ADP
Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-770

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