CVE-2026-71892

CMS key-transport recipient key-size validation never runs for RFC 9709 HKDF-derived keys

MEDIUM
6.9
CVSS Score
Published: October 3, 2026 at 08:30 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
MEDIUM6.9
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 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.

2.0.7 ≤ v < 2.0.132.1.0 ≤ v < 2.1.132.0.72.1.0
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
1.78 ≤ v < 1.861.78
Affected range stops below 1.86, 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

6.9MEDIUMbcorg
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusAWAITING ANALYSIS
CWE
CWE-697

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