CVE-2026-71889

PKIXCertPathReviewer does not apply X.509 name constraints to the target certificate

HIGH
8.7
CVSS Score
Published: October 3, 2026 at 08:31 AM UTC
Updated: October 6, 2026 at 02:49 PM UTC
2 products affected across 1 vendorBC JavaBouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA)

Using BC-JAVA by Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.?

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

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
HIGH8.7
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, neither copy of PKIXCertPathReviewer - org.bouncycastle.pkix.jcajce.PKIXCertPathReviewer nor the legacy org.bouncycastle.x509.PKIXCertPathReviewer - applied X.509 name constraints to the end-entity certificate. checkNameConstraints walked the path with a loop bound of index greater than zero, which is the bound the CA-only steps require, but index zero is the target certificate under the standard CertPath ordering, so the permitted and excluded subtree checks of RFC 5280 sec. 6.1.3 (b) and (c) never ran against the leaf's subject DN or its subjectAltName. A chain whose leaf violated a NameConstraints extension imposed by its own issuing CA therefore reported isValidCertPath() true with an empty error list, while CertPathValidator.getInstance("PKIX", "BC"), which shares no code with the reviewer, rejected the identical chain against the identical trust anchor. An application using the reviewer to make the trust decision rather than for diagnostics alongside a real validation accepted a certificate the constrained CA was never authorised to issue. Both copies now check every certificate in the path including the target, waive the sec. 4.2.1.10 self-issued exemption for the final certificate as sec. 6.1.3 requires, and skip the sec. 6.1.4 (g) constraint-accumulation step for the target. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, which carries only the org.bouncycastle.pkix.jcajce copy of the reviewer. It also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).

Affected

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

1.0.4 ≤ v < 1.0.132.0.0 ≤ v < 2.0.132.1.0 ≤ v < 2.1.131.0.42.0.02.1.0
Affected range stops below 1.0.13, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.13, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.1.13, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
v < 1.862.73.0 ≤ v < 2.73.132.73.0
Affected range stops below 1.86, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.73.13, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitAutomatablePartial impact

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

CVSS

8.7HIGHbcorg
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusAWAITING ANALYSIS
CWE
CWE-295

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