CVE-2026-75806

Unauthenticated and Undersized DTLS 1.2 AEAD Record Causes DoS

MEDIUM
5.3
CVSS Score
Published: September 29, 2026 at 03:32 PM UTC
Updated: October 8, 2026 at 01:20 AM 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
MEDIUM5.3
Exploit prediction
EPSS 1%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

Issue summary: An established DTLS 1.2 association using an AEAD cipher suite can be terminated by a single unauthenticated datagram whose encrypted fragment is shorter than the mandatory explicit IV and authentication tag overhead. Impact summary: An attacker who can send a datagram that is routed to an existing DTLS 1.2 association can tear that association down without knowing any key material. This is a Denial of Service limited to the targeted association. There is no memory safety or confidentiality impact. CWE: CWE-1284: Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input Description: In TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 every record protected by an AEAD cipher suite carries an explicit IV followed by the ciphertext and an authentication tag. When decrypting such a record the record layer passed the record length to the cipher implementation before checking that the record was long enough to contain the explicit IV and the tag. For a record shorter than that overhead the cipher implementation rejected the impossible length, and the record layer treated this as an internal failure and raised a fatal internal_error alert instead of treating the record as one that failed authentication. In TLS 1.2 the same record causes a fatal internal_error alert instead of the expected bad_record_mac alert. Since any undecryptable record already terminates a TLS connection, this is a protocol conformance issue rather than a security issue in TLS. The fix validates the record length against the explicit IV and tag length before any AEAD processing, so that TLS reports bad_record_mac and DTLS silently discards the record. FIPS impact: no The affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.

Affected

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

1.1.1 ≤ v < 1.1.1zj3.0.0 ≤ v < 3.0.233.4.0 ≤ v < 3.4.83.5.0 ≤ v < 3.5.93.6.0 ≤ v < 3.6.54.0.0 ≤ v < 4.0.31.1.13.0.03.4.03.5.03.6.04.0.0
Affected range stops below 1.1.1zj, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.0.23, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.4.8, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.5.9, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.6.5, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 4.0.3, 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

5.3MEDIUMCISA-ADP
Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
LOW
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-1284

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